Joint Coho Technical Committee Periodic Report

1 Introduction

In response to a decline in natural Coho Salmon (Onchorynchus kisutch) abundance, the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) established a Southern Coho abundance-based management regime (CoABM) in 1999 (Pacific Salmon Commission 1999). This Southern Coho Management Plan (SCMP, also referred to as ABM, or ‘abundance based management’) aimed to conserve Coho Salmon Management Units (MUs) of naturally-spawning Coho Salmon in southern British Columbia and Washington/Oregon based on abundance status and escapement goals. The set out to constrain exploitation rates (; defined as total fishing mortality divided by total fishing mortality plus escapement) below maximum levels (caps) on selected in order to achieve long-term Maximum Sustainable Harvests (MSHs). These constraints are implemented by specifying caps for the individual dependent on annual abundance status. During their respective preseason planning processes, the Parties use management reference points to classify the status of each as low, moderate, or abundant. The parties then exchange these status determinations as a key input in the development of pre-season plans.

When a new Coho Management Plan was agreed upon in 2008 (implemented 2009 through 2018; (Pacific Salmon Commission 2009)) and the latest agreement finalized (applies to the period from catch years 2019 through 2028; (Pacific Salmon Commission 2022)), modifications were made to the list of specified and to the manner in which caps are established. This periodic report presents information for the identified in the most current Pacific Salmon Treaty’s (PST) (Chapter 5 of Annex IV in the current ). In the 2008 abundance-based management regimes were established to constrain () on 13 of naturally-spawning Coho Salmon originating in rivers along the Washington/British Columbia (BC) border. Beginning in 2019, the most recent Management Plan (Pacific Salmon Commission 2022) combined two of the Canadian , the Georgia Strait Vancouver Island and the Georgia Strait Mainland into the Strait of Georgia . The 12 in the current are listed below (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1: Management Units within the current Pacific Salmon Treaty Southern Coho Management Plan.

Southern BC	US Inside	US Outside
Interior Fraser	Skagit	Quillayute
Lower Fraser	Stillaguamish	Hoh
Strait of Georgia	Snohomish	Queets
	Hood Canal	Grays Harbor
	US Strait JDF

The objective of the , as described in the Treaty, is to manage salmon directed fisheries impact on Southern Coho stocks by limiting the total fishery exploitation and allow the different to produce long-term , while maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of the individual populations. In addition, the plan is designed to improve the prospect of sustaining healthy fisheries for both parties over the long-term. The plan is intended to be cost-effective and flexible to available technical capacity and information, while providing a predictable framework for planning fisheries impacts and allowing for objective monitoring, evaluation and modification.

Under the Agreement, the United States and Canada (the “Parties”) are required to establish escapement goals or that achieve , determine for each , and establish for each and status category (low, moderate, and abundant). Until such time as the Parties provide -specific targets, the identified default ceilings for each status category (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2: Range of agreed to total exploitation rates for MU abundance status categories in order to achieve maximum sustainable harvest.

Status	Total Exploitation Rate
Low	Up to 20%
Moderate	21% - 40%
Abundant	41% - 65%

Annual caps are established for each of the based on the level of abundance and health of the natural stocks. These caps are then apportioned between the Parties. Constraints for Canadian fisheries on US are determined by formulas that specify sharing of allowable as well as a composite rule, which together adjust caps according to the number of US MUs that fall within a given category. The composite rule adjusts constraints for Canadian fishery based on the number of US which fall in a given category. For example, if only one Washington coastal or Puget Sound Coho is in low status, Canadian fisheries are constrained to a total on that unit of 12%; if two or more Washington coastal are in low status, the constraint becomes 10%. The most restrictive limit for Canadian fishery impacts on US Coho is 10%.

At this time, constraints for US fisheries on Canadian depend on the status of the Interior Fraser until the biological statuses of the other Canadian have been determined. Under Annex IV Chapter 5 Section 8.c(i), until Canada establishes status determination methods for Canadian MUs other than the Interior Fraser , the Parties shall implement this Chapter to comply with status and associated caps that relate to the Interior Fraser and US only.

The status determination methodology developed and applied by Canada to the Interior Fraser Coho (Korman et al. 2019) consists of two criteria: 1) smolt-to-adult survival; and 2) escapement, which both? must be met for three consecutive years in order increase the status from low to moderate or moderate to high. Canada is currently working to develop the information (smolt to adult survival rates, escapements) needed to apply this status determination methodology to the Lower Fraser and Strait of Georgia . Details as to how constraints are established based on the status of under the are contained in Annex IV Chapter 5 Section 9.b-c (Canadian caps on inside and outside US ) and Section 9.d (US caps on Canadian ).

1.1 Management Unit Overview

The Canadian are comprised of geographical aggregates of naturally spawning Coho conservation units (CUs) within the Interior Fraser River (Figure 4.9), Lower Fraser River (Figure 4.9), and Strait of Georgia (Figure 4.34). A consists of one or more spawning populations which are genetically distinct from other conspecific spawning populations. The 2019 renewal of the combined the Georgia Basin – East and Georgia Basin – West into a single Strait of Georgia , reducing the number of Canadian in the bilateral management regime to three. Beginning with catch year 2019, the CoTC chose to combine model outputs for these in carrying out its pre-season and post-season evaluations, rather than reconfigure the FRAM framework.

Figure 1.1: Canadian Management Units

The US Inside consist of naturally spawning populations originating in the Skagit (Figure 4.46), Stillaguamish (Figure 4.57), Snohomish (Figure 4.68), Hood Canal (Figure 4.81), and the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 4.88). Coho populations in the US Inside belong to the larger Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU; (Weitkamp et al. 1995)). Only the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca is in this ESU. An ESU is a Pacific salmon population or group of populations that is substantially reproductively isolated from other conspecific populations and represents an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species. The ESU policy (56 FR 58612) for Pacific salmon defines the criteria for identifying a Pacific salmon population as a distinct population segment, which can be listed under the US Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The US Outside consist of naturally-spawning populations from the Quillayute (Figure 4.99), Hoh (Figure 4.109), Queets (Figure 4.119), and Grays Harbor (Figure 4.129) basins. All US Outside , except the Grays Harbor , are part of the Olympic Peninsula ESU. Populations from the western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca are also in this ESU. The Grays Harbor is part of the Southwest Washington ESU.

Figure 1.2: United States Management Units

1.2 Fishery Overview

Under the CoABM regime, each Party is required to regulate its fisheries so as not to exceed constraints on . Fishery Management Areas for British Columbia (Figure 1.3), Washington (Figure 1.4), and Oregon (Figure 1.5) are shown below.

Figure 1.3: Canadian DFO Southern BC Pacific Fisheries Management Areas.

Figure 1.4: Washington Coast and Puget Sound Marine Fishery Areas.

Figure 1.5: Oregon Ocean Salmon Management Areas and Major Port Locations.

1.2.1 Canadian Fisheries

Request for input

Southern BC Coho Salmon are caught in First Nations, recreational, and commercial troll and net fisheries. Since Coho Salmon rear in areas near the coast they are readily caught in directed fisheries and as bycatch in fisheries targeting other species. As a result, Coho Salmon are harvested in mixed-stock fisheries, creating many challenges for the assessment and management of the species.

Coho Salmon catches on the south coast of BC have declined since the mid-1980s, initially due to declining abundance and more recently because of severe conservation measures in response to the declining abundance. Total fishery in Canada were reduced from a range of 75 to 80% in the mid-1980s to 60% in 1995, 37% in 1997, 5% in 1998, and are currently estimated by Backwards Coho Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) during catch years 2011 through 2021 at less than 10%.

Historically 89% of the commercial Coho Salmon catch on the south coast of BC was taken by the troll sector with the remainder harvested by commercial net fisheries. The West Coast of Vancouver Island (WCVI) troll fishery was the single largest commercial harvester, taking an average of 1.5 million Coho Salmon in the 10-year period before 1997, when major fishing restrictions were imposed. This fishery intercepted stocks from the US, Strait of Georgia, and WCVI. Since 2001, average catch retained in the WCVI troll fishery has been 725 Coho, due primarily to the timing and non-retention restrictions in place for this fishery. Historically, catch in the Strait of Georgia troll fishery, comprised predominantly of Strait of Georgia stocks, was much smaller than the WCVI troll fishery (1986–1995 averaged 150,000 Coho Salmon, annually). The Strait of Georgia troll fishery has not been permitted to retain Coho Salmon since 1995.

Net fisheries in Johnstone Strait, Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia harvest Coho Salmon incidentally during directed fisheries on Sockeye (O. nerka), Pink (O. gorbuscha), and Chum (O. keta) Salmon. Net fisheries have been curtailed in recent years due to low returns of the target species and concerns for Chinook (O. tshawytscha) and Coho Salmon bycatch.

While the First Nations’ harvest of Coho Salmon is small compared with other salmon species, several First Nations harvest Coho Salmon for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. They are caught in hook and line, net, and spear fisheries in or near their local streams. They are also caught incidentally in other First Nations’ salmon fisheries directed on other species, such as Sockeye and Chum Salmon.

Recreational fishing for Coho Salmon in BC tidal waters continues to be important to residents and visitors. Until the recent decline in Coho Salmon abundance and subsequent severe fishing restrictions, 70% of tidal recreational fishing took place within the Strait of Georgia. Since 1995, most Coho Salmon recreational fishery effort and catch has shifted from the Strait of Georgia to the WCVI, in part due to low abundance of Coho Salmon inside Vancouver Island. Overall, the proportion of Coho Salmon harvested by the recreational fishery has increased as commercial harvest has been significantly reduced as a result of the timing and non-retention harvest restrictions, as well as domestic allocation considerations in Canada that were implemented in response to the low abundance of Coho Salmon.

Due to conservation concerns, most notably for the Interior Fraser , Canadian Coho Salmon fisheries have seen unprecedented restrictions since 1997. In 1998 and 1999, no directed fisheries on naturally-spawning stocks of Coho Salmon were permitted; mandatory non-retention and non-possession of incidentally caught Coho Salmon was implemented in all areas, with the exception of some terminal hatchery locations. In the Pacific Region, (i.e., all marine waters of BC), barbless hooks became required for all salmon-directed commercial and recreational hook and line gear in 1998, a regulation that remains in effect. Pacific Region waters were classified as red or yellow zones. In red zones, areas where Thompson River Coho Salmon from the Interior Fraser River were known to be prevalent, fishing was restricted to very limited experimental selective fisheries, as well as some limited First Nations’ fisheries to meet food, social, and ceremonial requirements. Red zones included inshore waters of Victoria to Barkley Sound and offshore waters of Barkley Sound to Quatsino Sound, from June to September. Special management zones (SMZs), areas of mandatory Coho Salmon non-retention with special restrictions, were identified with the intent to avoid Coho Salmon encounters. Fisheries were only permitted in locations and times when Thompson River Coho Salmon could be avoided or released unharmed. These areas were subject to in-season adjustments, including time and area closures for all sectors. Fisheries conducted in these SMZs were monitored to ensure Coho Salmon encounter rates did not become too high, and tissue samples were taken for stock identification. In yellow zones, where endangered stocks were not prevalent, a selective fishing strategy was implemented for all commercial and recreational fisheries. These fisheries were required to release any live Coho Salmon Salmon that were caught during operations. Mandatory logbooks and an onboard observer program were initiated in commercial fisheries. Limited Coho Salmon retention was allowed only for First Nations and recreational fisheries.

Since 2000, fisheries impacting naturally-spawning Coho Salmon from southern BC, Washington State, and Oregon have been managed under the ABM regime. The ABM plan constrains total fishery exploitation on key stock in BC for each , annual limits of fishing mortality are established based on the categorical level of abundance and the health of the naturally-spawning stocks. In Canada, low status of Interior Fraser Coho Salmon has constrained southern BC fisheries for the last decade. The Southern US has been limited to 10% on Coho Salmon originating from the Interior Fraser . Southern BC fisheries, in waters south of Cape Caution where Interior Fraser Coho Salmon are prevalent, have been managed to a maximum 3% total fishing mortality rate on the Interior Fraser Coho Salmon . Non-retention of naturally-spawning Coho Salmon is generally in effect except for First Nations opportunities in specific terminal systems where abundance permits and where retention of by-catch during fisheries for other species is permitted. Release of unmarked Coho Salmon during periods when Interior Fraser Coho Salmon may be caught is required in all Canadian commercial and recreational fisheries.

1.2.2 US Fisheries

Current US fisheries are constrained by domestic and conservation objectives. For the Puget Sound , the current of CoABM uses the thresholds and stepped harvest rate goals from the Comprehensive Coho Agreement (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998), developed by Washington State and the Puget Sound tribes, and adopted by the as Fishery Management Plan conservation objectives in November 2009. Actual constraints for Canadian fisheries on US Coho Salmon are determined by formulas that specify sharing of allowable total and a “composite rule”. The composite rule adjusts constraints for Canadian fishery based on the number of US that fall in a given category. For example, if only one Washington coastal Coho Salmon is in low status, Canadian fisheries are constrained to a total on that unit of 12%; if two or more Washington coastal are in low status, the constraint becomes 10%. The most restrictive limit for Canadian fishery impacts on US Coho Salmon is 10%.

Fisheries between Cape Falcon, Oregon and the US/Canada Border are constrained by four factors: (1) management objectives and treaty Indian obligations for individual stock US MUs; (2) treaty Indian/non-Indian and ocean/in-river sharing agreements; (3) stocks listed under the ESA; and (4) requirements of the . The starting point for implementing these constraints is the forecasted January age-3 (JA3) abundance and the modeled ocean distribution of each Coho Salmon stock.

Most Coho-directed recreational fisheries [Jeromy comment: Freshwater and marine? I think so, for WA, and Columbia River but would be good to add this qualifier in if true. More recently the OR coast freshwater fisheries are all non-selective, hence why I am asking for a bit of a qualifier here if possible.] have been mark-selective since 1999. Non-Indian commercial troll fisheries have been mostly restricted to mark-selective Coho Salmon retention since 2000. Treaty Indian fisheries are not restricted to mark-selective retention of Coho Salmon.

1.3 Bilateral Assessment Tool (FRAM) Overview

Coho Salmon fisheries are evaluated with the Coho Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (Coho FRAM), a bilaterally developed tool that is employed for both pre-season fishery planning and post-season estimation of escapements and (see: pre- and post-season applications).

Coho FRAM is an annual mixed-stock accounting model that evaluates a set of stock units within a set of fisheries over time periods within a single fishing year (the calendar year for Coho Salmon) (documentation on FRAM can be found here: https://framverse.github.io/fram_doc/). It can be used to estimate catch and escapement based on forecast abundance and planned fisheries (‘forward’), or it can be used to reconstruct ocean abundance from observed escapements and fisheries (‘backward’).

The Coho FRAM base period parameterization, determining stock-fishery-timestep impacts, was constructed from stock-specific fishery recoveries of coded-wire tags (CWTs) within the 5 time steps of January to June, July, August, September, and October to December during coast wide fisheries from 1986 to 1992. The procedure used to generate base period data is depicted below (Figure 1.6). For each base period year, post-season reconstruction of cohort abundances for each Coho Salmon is based on two different models: the Mixed-Stock Model (MSM) that estimates the Production Expansion Factors for each Production Region and Terminal Area Run Reconstruction (RRTERM) program that estimates stock-specific impacts for terminal marine and freshwater fisheries. The MSM uses recoveries for each model stock expanded by the Production Expansion Factors to best describe the total catch in each marine mixed-stock fishery. The MSM/ cohort analysis has been used for post-season reconstructions for catch years 1986-2007. However, beginning with catch year 1993, too few coded-wire tags were recovered in mixed-stock fisheries to perform robust cohort analyses using the mixed-stock model (Figure 1.7).

Figure 1.6: General procedure used to generate base period data for Coho FRAM.

Figure 1.7: Total estimated pre-terminal coded-wire-tag recoveries for all Coho Salmon ages 3 and 4 (regardless of clip status).

1.3.1 Key Uncertainties with Coho FRAM analysis

FRAM is a deterministic model that reports point estimates of cohort abundances and without explicit measures of uncertainty associated with them. Managers should consider the following data limitations and model assumptions when interpreting FRAM results:

• Cohort abundances and are sensitive to the quality of escapement estimates, with estimation practices varying substantially among stocks. For example, Puget Sound net pen programs often lack escapement estimates. For these programs, pre-season abundances are used or are scaled to a nearby hatchery program using a pre-post ratio.
• Marine survival indices are used to estimate Canadian abundances, except for Interior Fraser, in both pre- and post-season FRAM runs because abundance forecasts and escapement estimates are highly uncertain or unavailable for the remaining two Canadian MUs.
• It is unknown if average ocean distribution during the FRAM base period (derived using catch years 1986 to 1992 data) reflect the true annual ocean distribution of Coho Salmon stocks in contemporary years. A change in ocean distribution would lead to increased uncertainty in fishery-specific stock impacts.
• Complex regulations, such as fine-scale spatial/temporal and mixed retention limits for natural and hatchery Coho Salmon within a fishery, are difficult to represent and assess within FRAM and as a result, FRAM may not accurately represent stock-specific impacts within fisheries with these regulations.
• Spatial and temporal gaps in catch monitoring of some Canadian fisheries result in underestimation of catch.
• Uncertainty in mortality estimates arises from several sources, including creel census and catch estimation.
• Between time steps in FRAM, natural mortality is a constant rate; additionally, natural mortality does not reflect inter-annual variability in survival during adult ocean residence (January Age-3 through FRAM’s final time step).

For more details, see the FRAM documentation.

1.4 Environmental Trends Contextualizing Management

The productivity of Pacific salmon populations is influenced by numerous factors, including human activities (e.g., fishing mortality, habitat restoration and degradation, hatchery production) and environmental conditions in both fresh and marine habitats. Because of this, changes in the productivity for most populations partially reflects variation in environmental conditions. Due to large-scale environmental variation captured by metrics such as the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), population productivity undergoes periods of high and low productivity. Relatively productive conditions resulted in high freshwater and marine survival rates and subsequent high adult returns for many salmon stocks throughout the Pacific Northwest at various times, especially in the late 2000s and early 2010s. However, changes in ocean and freshwater conditions beginning in early 2014 due to exceptionally warm ocean waters and associated terrestrial impacts, plus an extremely strong El Niño event, led to subsequent declines in abundance in many populations. Here, we briefly summarize marine and terrestrial conditions over the past 15–20 years to provide environmental context when examining trends in southern Coho Salmon under the .

1.4.1 Terrestrial Conditions

Annual average temperatures and precipitation by water year (Oct–Sep) provide a broad-brush view of terrestrial conditions across the Pacific Northwest. A strong and persistent warming trend and large year-to-year variations in precipitation are among the most notable features in recent decades (Figure 1.8). Within snow-dominated watersheds, warmer winters and springs experienced in recent years reduce snow accumulation and hasten snowmelt. Reduced snowpack causes an earlier and smaller freshet in spring and can result in lower minimum flows and higher stream temperatures in summer.

Figure 1.8: Water year (Oct–Sep) surface air temperature (top) and precipitation (bottom) for the Pacific Northwest (OR, WA, and ID combined). The historical average is shown with a black horizontal line. Data from NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/regional/time-series.

For the Pacific Northwest, water year 2015 stands out as the warmest year on record (Figure 1.8). The combination of below-average precipitation and record-high surface air temperature in 2015 brought record-low springtime snowpack to much of the west. Diminished snowpack and high surface temperatures combined with low springtime precipitation yielded especially low runoff to western watersheds in spring and early summer 2015. Unusually low flows and warm stream temperatures in spring/summer 2015 caused widespread problems for salmon throughout the western United States, including large mortality events for returning Sockeye Salmon to the Fraser and Columbia Rivers.

In June 2021, record-breaking terrestrial temperatures were recorded across western North America due to a ‘heat dome’ (White et al. 2023). It resulted in some of the highest temperatures ever recorded across large parts of British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington (11–19°C, 20–35°F above normal temperatures), including the highest temperature ever recorded in Canada (49.5°C, 121.3°F). This 1,000-year event was due to an exceptionally strong ridge centered over the area (the “heat dome”), whose strength was greatly increased by climate change. The heat wave sparked numerous extensive wildfires, extensive damage to forest vegetation and crops, and was responsible for the deaths of nearly 1,400 people across the region.

Coho Salmon inhabiting streams, rivers, and marine environments were likely affected by the heat dome, although many of these impacts are not well documented. Streams temperatures across the region increased dramatically in response to the heat dome, which also decreases oxygen saturation, potentially causing to physiological stress to stream-dwelling fish. In intertidal environments in the Salish Sea, an estimated 1 billion animals (primarily shellfish) died as a result of the heat wave coinciding with extreme low tides, which then impacted water quality (Raymond et al. 2022). The true impacts of the 2021 heat dome on Coho Salmon populations managed under will likely never be known, but may include generally decreased productivity and survival for the 2020 year class (which will return as adults in 2023), because it was residing in freshwater during the extraordinary event.

1.4.2 Marine Conditions

Surface temperatures in the northeastern Pacific Ocean vary on decadal time scales, with periods of above and below average temperatures, as indicated by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; (Mantua et al. 1997)). Recently, surface temperatures were notably cooler than average from 1999–2002, 2008–13 and again starting in 2020 (Figure 1.9). They were warmer than normal from 2003–05, and at record highs for much of the period from fall 2013–20 due to a series of marine heat waves. For the California Current region, surface temperatures reached record high levels from 2014–16, with 2015 being the single warmest year in the historical record (Jacox et al. 2018). In most years, positive PDO values correspond to El Niño events (e.g., the 2015/2016 El Niño), while negative PDO values correspond to La Niña events (e.g., 2021, 2022, and 2023 La Niñas).

Figure 1.9: Time series of shifts in sign of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO; bars) and the Ocean Niño Index (ONI; line) from 1996 to the present. Red bars indicate positive (warm) years; blue bars are negative (cool) year. Data from NOAA: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ersst/v5/index/ersst.v5.pdo.dat, https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php.

Since the original “blob” in 2014–16 (Bond et al. 2015), a series of marine heat waves have spread across large parts of the North Pacific Ocean in 2019, 2020, 2022, and 2023. These heat waves not only cause elevated water temperatures, but are also associated with extremely low nutrient levels. These heat waves vary greatly in their location across the North Pacific Ocean and although largely offshore, they occasionally spread to coastal waters such as in 2015.

1.4.2.1 Biological impacts of marine conditions

The biological impacts of these temperature swings and marine heat waves are documented in a number of annual reports and descriptive papers (e.g., Morgan et al. 2019) for areas of the northeastern Pacific Ocean that Coho Salmon occupy during their marine residence period. In all cases, the reports show a dramatic biological response at all trophic levels—from primary producers to marine mammals and seabirds—to the marine heatwaves that have spread across the northeastern Pacific Ocean since 2014 and continued into 2023. These ecosystem changes have had large effects (both positive and negative) on Pacific salmon returns around the Pacific Rim, not just southern Coho Salmon.

Overall, the marine heat wave in 2014–2016 had the most drastic impact on marine ecosystems in 2015, with lingering effects into 2016 and 2017. Conditions had somewhat returned to “normal” in 2018 and again in 2021, but marine heat waves in coastal waters in 2019 and 2022 set off a series of marine ecosystem changes across the North Pacific. Here we provide a brief summary of some of the largest biological impacts recent ocean conditions that were observed.

Primary Producers. One of the most dramatic impacts to coastal waters was the largest bloom of the diatom Pseudo-nitzschia ever recorded in 2015 (Bates et al. 2018). It stretched from Southern California to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. Pseudo-nitzschia produces domoic acid, a neurotoxin that causes amnesic shellfish poisoning, which is potentially fatal in mammals (including humans) and seabirds, but apparently does not affect fish. The 2015 bloom caused high domoic acid levels, resulting in fishery closures for razor clams and Dungeness crab and the death of hundreds of seabirds and marine mammals. Continuing (but much smaller) Pseudo-nitzschia blooms have continued across to flare up along the coasts from California to British Columbia ever since.

Lower Trophic Levels. Marine heatwaves also dramatically altered the lower trophic levels, resulting in decreases in high quality prey such as lipid-rich copepods and krill, and increases in gelatinous organisms (jellyfish, pelagic tunicates), which have low nutritional value. This shift to poor prey quality was expected to cause poor survival for juvenile fish and seabirds which rely on these prey types. The year 2017 also saw an explosion of Pyrosoma atlanticum, from California to SE Alaska. These normally tropical species are rare north of Southern California but spread north starting in 2013, peaking in 2017, and largely absent north of California by 2019. Pyrosomes are a low-quality, high-fiber prey, but were observed in the stomachs of dozens of species, including juvenile and adult Pacific salmon. Lower trophic levels rebounded in 2021, but less so in 2022 due to inconsistent upwelling.

Nekton. Larger fish and invertebrates, which serve as forage fish, showed both increases and decreases in abundance and ranges. For example, California market squid has been expanding as far north as SE Alaska, and caught in commercial quantities in Washington and Oregon waters since 2016. Other species that proliferated in the warm water of the California Current include Pacific Pompano, Northern Anchovy, and both Jack and Pacific Mackerel. Species with marked declines include Pacific Hake, juvenile sardine and anchovy, and Pacific Herring. Juvenile rockfish were extremely abundant in the northern California Current and as far north as British Columbia in 2016–18. Exotic American shad, has also exhibited remarkable increases in abundance in the Columbia River, with counts over Bonneville Dam reaching 7.4 million fish in 2019 and exceeding 5 million fish since 2018.

Farther north, Northern Anchovy have been extremely abundant in the Salish Sea since 2016. Juvenile salmon of all species except chum have also been below average off the west coast of Vancouver Island, while Chum Salmon have been abundant. The catch of juvenile salmon in 2017 in both Icy Straits, Alaska (mainly Pink, Chum, and Sockeye Salmon), and off the Washington/Oregon coasts (spring Chinook and Coho Salmon), were both extremely low, consistent with low adult returns (e.g., Columbia River spring Chinook Salmon in 2019). Forage fish in Alaskan waters show mixed trends with decreases in Capelin and Sand Lance and increases in Pacific Herring.

Apex fishes. Reports from northern waters suggest increases in several apex fishes, including Spiny Dogfish, Arrowtooth Flounder and sablefish. By contrast, Pacific Cod crashed in 2017, resulting in closures for Alaskan cod fisheries in 2018. Elevated sea surface temperatures in 2015 (and to less extent in 2019) also resulted dramatic range extensions for warm water fishes including billfish, tunas, and sharks.

Seabirds. Particularly notable impacts to seabirds were large die-offs of Cassin’s Auklet in winter 2014–15, and Common Murres between summer 2015 and spring 2016 from California to Alaska and again along the Washington–Oregon coasts in fall 2019.

Marine mammals. Recent extreme ocean conditions have resulted in several large mortality events for marine mammals. In the California Current, record numbers of California sea lion pups were found starving in early 2015, while there was elevated sea lion mortality during 2013–16. Because of poor conditions along the entire coast, the number of California and Stellar sea lions in the Columbia River estuary peaked in 2015, where they consumed large quantities of adult (and presumably juvenile) salmon. There have also been two large whale unusual mortality events recently: in the western Gulf of Alaska and British Columbia in 2015–16 (52 whales of many species), and a gray whale mortality event in 2019 (over 250 dead whales reported from Mexico to Alaska).

Pacific salmon. The abundance of Pacific salmon populations around the Pacific Rim have also shown dramatic changes since 2015. While some populations (especially in northern areas) have returned at record high abundances, others have dropped to new lows. These trends demonstrates that unusually high or low returns are not restricted to any one region, species, or production type (hatchery or natural), but were ocean-wide. For example, recent low steelhead (O. mykiss) returns to the Columbia River basin parallel extremely low steelhead returns to the Fraser River basin, and while Russian Pink and Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon reached record highs, Fraser Sockeye and Japanese Chum Salmon fell to record lows.

Coho Salmon populations from the Oregon coast to the Salish Sea had unexpectedly low returns in 2015, including some of the lowest returns on record. Although returns were predicted to be above average, the small body size and low abundance of these adults suggested poor feeding conditions during the last summer in marine waters. Steelhead returns were extremely low in 2017 and 2018 in the same areas, to the point that Thompson and Chilcotin River (Fraser River, British Columbia) steelhead were petitioned for emergency protection under the Canadian Species At Risk Act (Neilson and Taylor 2018). One species in the region that increased in abundance was Chum Salmon starting in 2016, perhaps in part due to their reliance on gelatinous prey, which were abundant.

Both Fraser and Columbia River Sockeye Salmon, which re-enter freshwater in mid-summer, incurred huge in-river mortalities in 2015 due to elevated river temperatures. The following year (2016), Fraser River Sockeye Salmon had the smallest return on record (total run of <1 million fish), but was even lower in 2019 (500,000 fish), as progeny of the 2015 year class returned as adults. The 2020 Fraser River Sockeye Salmon return was still lower (<300,000 fish). By contrast, Columbia River Sockeye Salmon returns were relatively high in 2016 (326,000), and reached an all-time high of 341,000 counted over Bonneville Dam in 2020.

In Alaska, there was a strong east–west gradient in run size, with western Alaska generally having exceptionally high salmon returns, while central and southeastern Alaska saw declines. Perhaps most impressive has been the annual catch of Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon, which broke a new abundance record in 2022 with 79 million adults (the 20 year [2002–2021] average run was 43.6 million). Similarly, 2017 was the highest statewide catch of Chum Salmon on record, due in part to record Prince William Sound catches. In contrast, the abundance of Yukon River Chinook and Chum Salmon have greatly declined for reasons that aren’t entirely clear, leading to conservation concerns for both the salmon and the many subsistence fishers who rely on these runs for nutrition.

2 Determination of Status Benchmarks and ER Caps

2.1 Canadian Management Units

Procedures for determining the pre-season status of Canadian are being developed concurrently with determination of Conservation Unit (CU) status benchmarks required with implementation of the Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans’ (CDFO) Wild Salmon Policy. Methods have been approved through the ’s internal peer review process, Center for Scientific Advice - Pacific (CSAP) (Holt et al. 2009). Work in 2018 identified a framework to develop potential Management Reference Points for Canadian (DFO 2018, Korman et al. 2019; https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/consultation/smon/pst-coho-tsp/index-eng.html) included spawner abundance targets but also smolt-to-adult (or “marine”) survival index targets. It was deemed that targets must contain spawner abundance targets, which limited creation of management reference points to the Interior Fraser River because it was the only unit with an aggregate abundance timeseries.

Since 2002, in the absence of benchmarks, the Stock Assessment staff has provided a categorical outlook for the next year’s salmon status. The outlook is intended to provide an objective and consistent context within which to initiate fisheries planning.The category reflects the current interpretation of existing quantitative and qualitative information, including pre-season forecasts if available, and the opinion of Area stock assessment staff. Where management targets for stocks have not been formally described, interim targets were either based on historical return levels or, if necessary, opinion of local staff.

Canadian Coho Salmon abundance has declined, particularly in southern BC. Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon was assessed as endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) in2002 and then reassessed as threatened in 2016. Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon have not been listed on Schedule 1 of the Species at Risk Act, which would afford additional protections to the stock. However, the Canadian Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has established a domestic cap of 3-5% for Canadian fishery impacts on Interior Fraser Coho Salmon. The Interior Fraser is comprised of five (North Thompson, South Thompson, Lower Thompson, Fraser Canyon, and Upper Fraser). The Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon recovery planning process has determined the critical benchmark needed to maintain population viability. Even with the reduction in fisheries exploitation, all Southern BC have followed a similar dramatic declining trend in both marine survival and total abundance from the high levels observed in the 1980s and early 1990s. Spawning escapements have responded to the decreased exploitation and are within the range observed during the 1970s and 1980s. However, the sustained low marine survival has resulted in a decreased total abundance.

Because of the absence of programs to estimate total abundance and escapement for the Strait of Georgia and Lower Fraser River Canadian , the bilaterally-developed tool, Backwards Coho FRAM, is relied upon to generate estimates of ocean age-3 cohort abundance and using post-season data scalars. Cohort abundances (catch and escapement) of Canadian , estimated by Backwards Coho FRAM based on modeled scalars, are depicted in Figure Figure 4.1. Reduced abundances apparent since 1996 were a major consideration that led to the development of ABM regimes for management of southern Coho Salmon.

2.2 US Inside Management Units

The status for US Inside is assigned based on ocean abundance (forecasted or re-constructed). Pre-season estimates of ocean abundance are typically forecasted from measured or modeled smolt production for each and multiplied by a marine survival rate predicted for each . Marine survival is predicted with a variety of methods including average return rates, correlations between jack and adult return rates, and correlations between environmental variables and historical return rates. Post-season estimates of ocean abundance are estimated using escapement and catch data and the Backwards Coho FRAM (Figure 4.2). The status of each is defined by a series of ocean abundance breakpoints. Domestic management of Puget Sound naturally-spawning Coho Salmon stocks also uses abundance-based, tiered objectives defined in the Comprehensive Coho Plan (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998), that are similar to but not exactly consistent with the guidelines. The identified break points between Low, Moderate, and Abundant status are based on population-specific productivity analyses conducted by the state and tribal co-managers in each river basin.

2.3 US Outside Management Units

The status for US Outside is assigned based on the ceiling identified annually, ocean abundance, and existing escapement goals (Pacific Salmon Commission 2022). Management objectives are expressed as a range of spawning escapements expected to produce MSY (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023a). Allowable are calculated from the forecast abundance and the lower end of the existing escapement goal range and used to classify the categorical status of the . This rate is the maximum allowed under the when the is in the moderate or abundant status, but up to 20% are allowed if the is in the low abundance status.

Pre- and post-season ocean abundances are estimated with the same approach described for the US Inside (Figure 4.3). Escapement goals for the US Outside are defined by state and tribal co-managers in each river basin and include escapement ranges in all but one (Grays Harbor) . Escapement ranges were originally intended to reflect the range of uncertainty in the escapement goals identified for each of these populations. Unlike the US Inside , escapement goals for the US Outside do not vary with run size. The escapement goals used for status determinations are the floor of the designated escapement ranges (see Table: @ref(tab:OutsideMUABM)). The stock status is “Low” if the ocean abundance is low enough that the ceiling falls at or below 20% in order to achieve the bottom end of the escapement range. The stock status is “Moderate” if ocean abundance results in an ceiling between 21% and 40%. The stock status is “Abundant” if ocean abundance results in an ceiling above 41%.

2.4 US Management Units Federal Status

Coho Salmon were the first Pacific salmon species for which coast-wide evolutionarily significant units (ESUs) were delineated (Ford 2011). Based on genetic and life history information, the US subject to the belong to three different Coho Salmon ESUs, the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia, the Olympic Peninsula, and the Southwest Washington ESUs. The Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon ESU is currently a species of concern under the US Endangered Species Act (ESA; (Ford 2011); Species of Concern 4/15/04, 69FR19975). The Olympic Peninsula ESU was evaluated for listing under the ESA and was determined to be not warranted (60 FR 38011; July 25). The Southwest Washington ESU is currently categorized as “undetermined”. Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon are not currently candidates for listing in Washington as State Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2020).

At the federal level, species of concern do not have formal protection under the ESA. The primary purpose of identifying species of concern is to prevent the need to list them as threatened or endangered under the ESA. This purpose can be achieved by the following actions: (1) identifying species potentially at risk; (2) increasing public awareness about those species; (3) identifying data deficiencies and uncertainties in species’ status and threats; (4) stimulating cooperative research efforts to obtain the information necessary to evaluate species’ status and threats; and, (5) fostering voluntary efforts to conserve the species before listing becomes warranted.

Additionally, at the federal level, Coho Salmon caught in coastal waters of the U.S. (e.g., greater than 3 but within 200 nautical miles offshore) are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which is the legislation providing for the management of marine fisheries in U.S. waters. In 2018, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) notified the that the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Queets, and Snohomish natural Coho Salmon stocks managed under the ’s Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) met the overfished criteria of the FMP and the MSA. NMFS determined that these stocks were overfished under the MSA, due to spawning escapement falling below the required level for the 3-year period 2014-2016. The MSA requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as short a time as possible, not to exceed 10 years. The overfished determinations were announced in the Federal Register on August 6, 2018 (83 FR 38292). In response to the overfished determination, the developed rebuilding plans for these stocks and provided them to NMFS in 2019. In 2021, NMFS issued a final rule under the authority of the MSA to approve and implement rebuilding plans recommended by the for the three stocks (86 FR 9301). This final rule adopts the existing harvest control rules, which use an annual abundance-based stepped harvest rate control rule with stock-specific abundance levels governing the total applied to forecast stock abundance levels. For Snohomish natural Coho Salmon, this final rule amends the existing harvest control rule by adding a 10% buffer to the existing escapement goal and adjusting the abundance steps during the rebuilding period. For all three Coho Salmon stocks, the ’s Salmon Technical Team’s analysis determined that freshwater and marine habitat conditions were the primary cause of these stocks meeting the FMP’s criteria for being overfished rather than fishing. Recently, it was determined that the Queets and Strait of Juan de Fuca have met the criteria for rebuilt status based on the most recent three-year geometric mean of escapement estimates (2020-2022) (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024a).

3 Annual Implementation of the Southern Coho Management Plan

The Coho FRAM (Coho FRAM, Model Evaluation Workgroup (MEW). 2008) has been the tool used to plan US preseason fisheries, and also to evaluate postseason by the fisheries of both Parties on the naturally spawning Coho Salmon specified by the CoABM. Canada has not been using Coho FRAM preseason, instead using a combination of a ‘domestic model’ for planning marine fisheries and a ‘decay model’ for planning Fraser River fisheries. (Jeromy’s comment - Can we describe what get’s exchanged during the preseason process to reconcile this difference here in one or two sentences?)

Each country manages the Coho Salmon harvest within its cap through its own domestic fisheries management processes and annual fisheries plans. For Canada, the annual domestic planning process is documented in the salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) at the culmination of the process each June (is June correct?). For the US, the North of Cape Falcon ocean salmon fishing plans are reported in Preseason Report III (PFMC documents) at the culmination of the process each April. For US Inside , the 2019 uses the thresholds and stepped harvest rate goals from the Comprehensive Coho Agreement and adopted as (Fishery Management Plan) FMP conservation objectives in 2009. For US Outside , constraints represent the Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold (MFMT). For US domestic purposes, the status categories are “critical”, “low”, and “normal”, which correspond to the categories of “low”, “moderate” and “abundant”, respectively (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024b).

The US FMP includes status determination criteria (SDC) for overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, overfished, not overfished/rebuilding, and rebuilt (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023b). These criteria are:

• Overfishing occurs when a single year exceeds the maximum fishing mortality threshold (MFMT), which is based on the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY);

• Approaching an overfished condition occurs when the geometric mean of the two most recent postseason estimates of spawning escapement, and the current preseason forecast of spawning escapement, is less than the minimum stock size threshold (MSST);

• Overfished status occurs when the most recent 3-year geometric mean spawning escapement is less than the MSST;

• Not overfished/rebuilding status occurs when a stock has been classified as overfished and has not yet been rebuilt, and the most recent 3-year geometric mean spawning escapement is greater than the MSST but less than Sustainable Maximum Yield (SMSY; the number of spawners need to maintain the highest possible annual catch of a population, a biological benchmark that represents a healthy population);

• A stock is rebuilt when the most recent 3-year geometric mean spawning escapement exceeds SMSY.

should we delete this? Include it under the MUs? or, leave here and update the status?

Queets natural Coho Salmon, Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon, and Snohomish natural Coho Salmon stocks were classified as overfished in 2018, and the adopted rebuilding plans for these stocks in 2019 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023a). In 2020, Snohomish natural Coho Salmon was reported to have met the criteria for not overfished/rebuilding. In 2023, Snohomish natural Coho was reported to have met the criteria for rebuilt and Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon was reported to have met the criteria for not overfished/rebuilding. Queets natural Coho Salmon continue to meet the criteria for overfished. Coho Salmon fisheries, particularly north of Cape Falcon, were shaped to minimize impacts on these stocks and meet the objectives of the rebuilding plans. Objectives of the rebuilding plans for Queets natural Coho Salmon and Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon are to manage the stock under status quo SMSY.

3.1 Annual Determinations of Allowable Exploitation Rates for Management Units

3.2 United States fishery Planning Process

The US annual salmon fishery planning process starts in January with a Stock and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report on fisheries and escapements from previous years and concludes in early April when preseason fishing plans for US fisheries are developed. Outlined below are the Coho FRAM inputs used within the US domestic process to plan annual Coho Salmon fisheries, and postseason data needed to evaluate the preseason plan.

Preseason FRAM inputs:

• Stocks’ abundance forecasts
• Fishery inputs by Coho FRAM time period (e.g., season structure, gear and retention restrictions, quota levels, fishery harvest rate scalars)

Inseason:

• FRAM fishery adjustments

Postseason FRAM inputs:

• Stocks’ observed escapement
• Fisheries’ observed catch and non-retention mortality by FRAM time period

Because the domestic planning processes of the Parties are not synchronous, a single pre-season command file containing expectations for both Canada and the US is not available prior to the conclusion of the process (US pre-season fishery planning) in April. Therefor, in any given year the pre-season command file used by the incorporates cohort abundance for both Canadian and US , but planned fishery regulations for US fisheries only. Unless other information is available, Canadian regulations are assumed to be similar to those implemented in the previous year. Subsequent to this process, additional command files are generated to represent the actual Canadian fishing plans. Command files used in pre-season planning from 2004 to 2023 are detailed in Table 10.1. These files contain specific information used at the time to model fisheries along with the pre-season forecasts of stock abundances.

3.2.1 US Preseason Abundance Forecasts

US forecast development commences in January of every year. US Forecasts for both Coho and Chinook Salmon stocks are finalized in late February and published in the annual PFMCs Pre I Report. In mid-March, the Parties share general expectations for stock abundance and fisheries though a manager-to-manager information exchange (see Development of Canadian Preseason Coho FRAM Inputs). These forecasts are then used throughout the /NOF (North of Falcon) salmon fishery planning meetings which conclude at the April meeting.

The forecast methodologies for many US stocks’ are generally based upon the products of two estimates specific to each production source: 1) number of smolts leaving freshwaters; and, 2) expected regional marine survival rates. Numbers of naturally produced smolts are estimated in a variety of ways but are based upon a large and widely distributed system of smolt traps. The number of smolts released from hatcheries are known. Marine survival is defined as, and calculated from, catch plus escapement from data. Sibling relationships, between jack returns and subsequent return to the mature cohort, have also been used as an index to predict marine survival. Environmental conditions have been increasingly relied upon as predictors of anticipated survival from smolt to adults entering the fisheries.

In recent years, a variety of preseason abundance estimators have been employed for Puget Sound and Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks, primarily based on smolt production and survival (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023b). These estimators are used to forecast preseason abundance of adult Ocean Age 3 recruits. Forecasts for natural Puget Sound Coho Salmon stocks were generally derived by measured or predicted smolt production from each major watershed or region, multiplied by stock-specific marine survival rate predictions based on a jack return model from the WDFW Big Beef Creek Research Station in Hood Canal, natural Coho Salmon tagging programs at Baker Lake (Skagit River basin) and South Fork Skykomish River, adult recruits/smolt data generated from the WDFW Deschutes River Research Station, or other information.

3.2.2 Development of US Preseason FRAM Inputs

US fishery planning relies upon both the Coho and Chinook FRAM models. The process starts at the early March meeting, proceeds through March at a variety of regional meetings (including the meetings), and concludes in early/mid April at the next meeting.

US Coho FRAM Stock Abundance Inputs: Abundance forecasts are incorporated into two models, Coho FRAM and Chinook FRAM, both of which rely on similar algorithms and common computer code. Mass marked and unmarked naturally and hatchery produced stocks (components of ) are represented in US Coho FRAM (e.g., Queets naturally produced unmarked, Queets naturally produced marked, Queets hatchery unmarked, Queets hatchery marked). For the specified by the , appropriate unmarked naturally produced stocks are combined. Numeric forecasts for southern US Coho Salmon stocks are provided from regional managers which utilize a variety of methodologies. The annual forecasts of Coho FRAM stocks are entered as Abundance Scalars, applied within the model to Base Period Stock Abundance.

Prior to the March meeting, an initial Coho FRAM model run with last year’s planned fisheries and the current year’s US forecasts serves to inform, in a general sense, how the fishery plan from the previous year needs to change to accommodate the current year’s stocks’ abundances. The results from this model run are included in the ’s Pre I Report. For these reports, see the PFMC Salmon Management Documents.

Starting with this initial model run, the US domestic salmon planning process is affected by the timing and quality of forecasts for Canadian Coho Salmon stocks. Coho FRAM performs best when data for all stocks are incorporated. The US domestic process is, in theory, at the half way point before Canadian forecasts are provided and combined with US forecasts for FRAM modeling at the 2 meeting in late March. Thus, at the March meeting and the 1 meeting there is hesitation to fully use the FRAM results for planning domestic fisheries as those results will likely change when Canadian forecasts are incorporated.

US FRAM Fishery Inputs: Expected fishery catch and/or mortality is the other major category of preseason inputs to Coho FRAM. At the March meeting three options (e.g., catch levels, retention restrictions, harvest rate scalars, seasons) are developed (low, moderate, high) for the US ocean fisheries (California, Oregon, and Washington coasts). The FRAM results for both Coho and Chinook Salmon from these March options are published in the annual Pre II Report.

During the course of March and early April US meetings, the domestic planning refines fishery inputs to insure compliance with various agreements. These include the Salmon FMP, domestic and international treaties; and the US ESA which collectively establish constraints on fishery impacts upon US Coho and Chinook Salmon stocks.

For the ocean fisheries the model inputs are Catch Quotas and regulations such as mark-selective fisheries, with the expectation that subsequent inseason monitoring will close fisheries without exceeding quotas. The model inputs for most sport and commercial US Puget Sound marine and terminal area fisheries are expected catch or expected harvest rates, generally based upon recent year averages and anticipated fisheries for Fraser Sockeye, Pink and Chum Salmon, and regulations such as mark selective fishing. In some cases the Catch Quota management approach is also used within Puget Sound with planned fishery closure as inseason observations indicate FRAM total fishery mortality estimates are being approached. The mortality associated with Coho Salmon non-retention is another class of fishery inputs.

Through the month of March the meetings shape inside fisheries (Washington Coastal terminal, Puget Sound marine and freshwater) for both Coho and Chinook Salmon for compliance with domestic and international requirements. The planning informs the April meeting toward the development of the final set of ocean, inside, and terminal fisheries. The FRAM modeling results of the final adopted regulations for ocean fisheries are published in the Pre III Report, and submitted to the US Department of Commerce for approval under the MSA and confirmation of compliance with the US ESA and other domestic obligations. Inside fisheries are formalized by regional agreements by state and tribal managers. There is no ability to modify the regulations and agreements after they are adopted.

Throughout this process, the January post season, Pre I-III reports are provided to Canada as information. The Final April Coho FRAM run is also provided to Canada. It is the April model run that until recently has provided the information for post season assessment of (see Canadian section of “Timing of Domestic Planning” for potential exception).

3.2.3 US Inseason Management

This information is from the ’s 2024 Preseason Report III (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024a).

In season changes to planned U.S fisheries are limited, but have been implemented under some specific conditions. When ocean area/fishery specific quotas are not being caught in an ocean area then part of the quota may be transferred to another ocean area/fishery, based upon FRAM estimates of neutral impacts to the limiting stock(s); this may include adjustments to bag limits, seasons, and/or MSF regulations. The preseason planned prosecution of some fisheries is dependent upon the results of test fisheries, i.e., the Fraser Panel Sockeye directed commercial fisheries. Emergency closures due to attaining or exceeding planned catch quotas or in response to indications of reduced abundance.

3.2.4 US Management Units 2024 Exploitation Rate Constraints

For 2024, Puget Sound and Washington coast Coho Salmon preliminary constraints are as follows (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024a):

Table 3.1: PST Southern Coho Management Plan

PST MU	Total Exploitation Rate Constraint	Categorical Status
Skagit	60%	Abundant
Stillaguamish	50%	Abundant
Snohomish	40%	Moderate
Hood Canal	45%	Moderate
Strait of Juan de Fuca	40%	Moderate
Quillayute Fall	39%	Moderate
Hoh	59%	Abundant
Queets	55%	Abundant
Grays Harbor	57%	Abundant

(Table 3.1) constraint is Preliminary. For Puget Sound and Washington Coast management units, the constraints reflect application of the 2019 . Under the , categories (Abundant, Moderate, Low) correspond to the general ranges depicted in paragraph 8(b)(iii) of the 2019 . For Washington Coast stocks, categorical status is determined by the associated with meeting the escapement goal (or the lower end of the escapement goal range). As Washington Coast stocks are managed to achieve agreed escapement goals, this also becomes an approximation of the maximum allowable rate unless the stock is in the “Low” status. In that case, an of up to 20% is allowed.

Grays Harbor constraints are based on projected natural area spawners (wild plus hatchery strays) and MSP escapement goal of 35,400. Exploitation rate constraint subject to change should comanagers agree to a modified escapement goal under US v. Washington and Hoh v. Baldrige case law.

3.3 Canadian Fishery Planning Process

Annual Canadian fisheries are planned using a combination of two domestic models (marine fisheries and freshwater decay models) and tools focused upon Interior Fraser River (IFR) Coho Salmon The planning process starts early in the year. A draft IFMP is available for stakeholder comment in April, but the IFMP is not finalized until formally approved by the Fisheries Minister in June.

In the domestic process, initial planning scenarios are developed based on discussions with Fishery Managers, preliminary salmon outlook for stock status (prepared in November of previous year), effort expectation (targeted or incidental impact on IFR Coho Salmon) given constraints, and domestic allocation policy. Once stock abundance forecasts are available in March and timing and diversion forecasts for Fraser Sockeye are available in June, the final Salmon IFMP is submitted to the Minister for approval. The Canadian domestic model does not use Coho Salmon abundance forecasts directly, relying instead upon past relationships between fisheries’ effort and IFR , to estimate preseason projected for IFR. Depending on what species or fishery specific objectives are in place for the upcoming season, the domestic model is populated with anticipated effort based on trends in recent years and scaled to base period (1986–1997) effort. Multiple scenarios are run based on adjusting preliminary fishing plans (species, effort, month, gear, regulations) and results are reviewed by Fisheries Managers and evaluated for multiple objectives, in particular, meeting the preseason objectives for IFR Coho Salmon.

Key considerations for Canadian fishery management for Coho Salmon in 2024 are expected to include: (1) meeting domestic conservation obligations for Interior Fraser (including Thompson River) Coho Salmon; (2) Coho Salmon harvests by First Nations fisheries; (3) incidental impacts during commercial and First Nations fisheries directed at Chinook, Chum, and especially Fraser Sockeye Salmon which will see a dominant late run return in 2024. The Canadian fishery regimes affecting Coho Salmon are expected to be driven by Canadian domestic allowable impacts on the Thompson River component of the IFR management unit, Fraser Chinook concerns and Fraser Sockeye stocks of concern co-migrating with the late run.

In years prior to 2014, Canadian fisheries were managed so as not to exceed a 3% maximum . In May 2014, Canada decided to permit up to a 16% on upper Fraser Coho Salmon in Canadian fisheries to allow for impacts in fisheries directed at a record Fraser Sockeye forecast. Since 2015, upper Fraser Coho Salmon in Canadian fisheries have been managed per low status limitations. The projected status of Canadian coho in 2024 indicates continuing concerns for the condition of Interior Fraser Coho Salmon. The Interior Fraser Coho Salmon is anticipated to remain in low abundance status, resulting in a requirement to constrain the total mortality fishery for 2024 Southern U.S. fisheries to a maximum of 10.0%.

3.3.1 Development of Canadian Preseason Coho FRAM Inputs

The US preseason Coho FRAM modeling requires Canadian inputs to complete the model for the US domestic planning and this also enables the pre to post season Coho FRAM evaluation of both Parties’ fisheries. The Canadian data used to inform Coho FRAM for annual US preseason planning and joint postseason evaluation are outlined below:

Preseason:

• Stocks’ abundance forecasts, or;
• Regional expected marine survival rates, based on indicator stocks;
• FRAM fishery scalars by Coho FRAM time period from postseason analysis of a fishery plan similar to anticipated fishing patterns

Inseason:

• FRAM fishery adjustments or significant deviations in expected abundance / catch

Postseason:

• Stocks’ observed escapement, or;
• Regional observed marine survival rates;
• Fisheries’ observed catch by FRAM time period

Canadian FRAM Stock Abundance Inputs:

US FRAM preseason modeling requires forecasts of Canadian stocks. Forecast development commences every year in early March, and is provided to US FRAM modelers in mid to late March for use at the second NOF meeting, prior to the April PFMC meeting.

To obtain these values Canadian forecast methodology uses the following information:

1. Annual hatchery production
2. Base Period FRAM natural production
3. Base Period hatchery production
4. Predicted marine survival
5. Base Period marine survival
6. Base Period FRAM stock abundance values

Estimates of freshwater production (smolt out-migrants) for hatchery produced Coho Salmon, by FRAM production region, are scaled to Base Period production. Next the annual expected regional marine survival (MS) is scaled to Base Period marine survival. Both ratios are applied to a stock’s Base Period Abundance to produce the annual adult abundance forecasts. To illustrate (by stock):

\[\text{Adult H Abundance} = \text{(Base Adult Abundance)}\frac{\text{(Annual H Smolts)}}{\text{(Base H Smolts)}} \frac{\text{(Expected MS)}}{\text{(Base MS)}}\]

Hatchery smolt data are obtained from the Canadian Salmon Enhancement Program. Where naturally produced smolt out-migrant estimates exists (2 of 14 Canadian production regions), the values are used. For the production regions where naturally produced smolt data are not available (the remaining 12 of 14 Canadian production regions), the default production starting values has been the same as the annual hatchery output for the same FRAM production region, which assumes similar smolt abundance trends between naturally produced and hatchery smolts occurs across time. (Jeromy comment - “Correct? If so, can we say in a sentence or two how reliable, or potentially unreliable this practice is going forward?”) As hatchery production has been reduced over time it has become necessary to find other means to obtain the surrogates for naturally produced smolt production.

Marine survival expectations have been based upon hatchery and wild indicator returns. As the number of Coho Salmon indicators has been reduced over time it has become necessary to use adjacent indicators to estimate marine survival for some and use hatchery indicators to estimate survival of naturally spawning Coho Salmon.

For IFR, where naturally produced smolt output is not available, the forecasted adult returns are used as inputs to Coho FRAM. This forecast is based on a naive model, usually an average of the previous three years estimated ocean adult abundance. However, the forecast may be “as observed last year” when it appears a longer term average is not appropriate; this was the case for the 2016 fishing year forecast. Several US 2016 forecasts also used the “as observed last year” approach due to the extremely poor returns in 2015 and the observations that those same poor environmental conditions existed for the smolts entering the ocean in 2015 (i.e., the 2016 adults).

Canadian FRAM Fishery Inputs:

Preseason FRAM’s anticipated fishery related mortality for Canadian Coho Salmon retention fisheries is modeled using Fishery Scalars (these Scalars essentially function as a harvest rate within the FRAM) taken from postseason Coho FRAM model runs with similar fishery plans and effort. For example, impacts of the Fraser River Sockeye directed fisheries may be estimated from 4 years previous. The Fraser River pink directed fishery impacts are estimated from the fisheries 2 year previous. The impacts from the Chinook troll fishery are based on a year with a similar Chinook harvest guidelines. The mortality associated with Coho Salmon non-retention regulation is another class of fishery inputs, also taken from previous postseason FRAM model runs under the assumption of similar fishery plans and effort, and similar Coho Salmon abundance levels.

3.3.2 Canadian Inseason Management

Canadian fishery planning process generally concludes in June, with the fisheries directed upon Fraser River salmon (Pinks, Sockeye, and Chum) driven by test fisheries. This later planning process can produce anticipated fishery impacts that diverge from the postseason Canadian fishery scalars used for the US domestic modeling the previous April. In such cases the April FRAM model run can be “updated” to evaluate both Parties compliance with the Coho Agreement.

3.4 Joint Canadian and US Postseason Evaluations

“Backwards Coho FRAM” is used to generate estimates of that are used to evaluate management performance relative to constraints set forth in the . Data required to populate FRAM are not available until one year after the fisheries were prosecuted, thus the 2021 postseason estimates were produced in February of 2023. The Backwards Coho FRAM is also employed to produce estimates of historic reported in this Periodic Report.

Backwards Coho FRAM requires estimated mortalities by fishery strata (uses the Base Period stock-fishery-time steps; terminal IFR fisheries have been incorporated recently) and available estimates of escapements to reconstruct annual cohort abundances and generate post-season estimates of . The escapement estimates for Coho FRAM stocks and catch information (catch, type of fishery –Mark Selective, Non-retention, Quota) for FRAM fisheries are compiled from various government agencies (USA: Federal, State and Tribal; Canada: Federal, and First Nations) and reviewed by the CoTC.

The Backwards Coho FRAM derives total cohort abundance of Coho FRAM stocks through an iterative process of estimating the set of stock abundance scalars that best explain observed escapements and reported catches. FRAM calculation of stock abundance scalars is the preferred method and occurs when escapement data are available (almost all US stocks). When escapement estimates are not available (almost all Canadian stocks), the stock abundance scalars are calculated externally and entered into FRAM; an estimate of “observed” marine survival has been used as a surrogate to recalculate Canadian stock abundances per the preseason method previously described. Consequently, FRAM’s iterative process of estimating a full set of stock abundance scalars is not possible and this has implications for backwards FRAM estimates of abundance for all stocks. Ideally total cohort abundance for each is derived by summing model estimated stock specific: pre-terminal catch, terminal catch, and escapement.

The Backwards Coho FRAM provides two estimates of cohort abundance, termed “Ocean age-3” (OA3) and “January age-3” (JA3). Ocean age-3 abundance includes escapement and fishery impacts. includes escapement, fishery impacts, and natural mortality. is the basis for stock status and is therefore the measure provided in the tables and figures in this report, and in the annual postseason evaluations.

These estimates of cohort abundance, catches and escapements are used to generate estimates of and determine status for post season reporting to the Southern Panel.

3.5 Overview of Coded Wire Tag Use

The use of the term indicator stock within this report does not imply a set list of agreed to indicator stocks. Instead, the CoTC assesses all available data for inclusion in the Mixed-Stock Model (MSM), cohort reconstructions, and other processes. With the base period spanning many years, it is beneficial if a stock is well tagged and well sampled over a long period of time. The coded-wire tag indicator stocks provide the primary data for predicting, monitoring, and modeling harvest impacts on individual Coho Salmon populations. The Joint Coho Technical Committee (CoTC) uses recoveries from the indicator stocks to reconstruct cohorts coastwide. While a few indicator tag groups are naturally-spawning fish, the vast majority consist of hatchery fish intended to represent each . Hatchery indicator stocks are selected on the basis of brood stock, rearing, and release strategies and are assumed to be surrogates for the naturally-spawning fish. The indicator program assumes that tagged and untagged fish experience similar trends in marine survival and similar exploitation patterns. Coastwide, approximately eight million juvenile Coho Salmon are coded-wire tagged annually (Nandor et al. 2010).

Some major changes in the indicator stock program have occurred since the was signed in 1985. One of the most notable changes is the mass marking of hatchery fish in the Pacific Northwest. For many years, an adipose fin clip was used as an external mark to identify fish (natural spawning or hatchery) with a . However, since brood year 1995 in the US and 1996 in Canada, the adipose fin clip has been used as a mass mark to identify hatchery-origin fish and no longer uniquely indicates a coded-wire-tagged fish. With the advent of mark-selective fishing, marked (adipose fin-clipped) and unmarked fish do not have the same patterns of exploitation, violating the fundamental assumption of the indicator tag program. These changes in marking and fishing have resulted in the development and use of double index tag (DIT) releases in the indicator tag programs. The group consists of two groups of hatchery fish, each 100% tagged with its own unique . The two groups are presumed to be identical, except that one tagged group is unmarked and the other group is marked with an adipose fin clip. In a MSF, catches of marked fish will be retained whereas catches of unmarked fish will be released. The difference in return rates to the hatchery reflects the difference in ocean ERs in selective fisheries. A group is recommended when the stock of interest is expected to be exploited by a mark-selective fishery (MSF). Unpaired (non-DIT) tag groups are either marked or unmarked and are considered single index tag (SIT) groups in this document.

To obtain unbiased estimates of fishery-specific impacts on individual stocks, a known proportion of both the catch and escapement must be sampled for throughout the migratory range of the stock and the proportion sampled must be adequate to produce a statistically reliable expansion of sampled Coho Salmon Mass marking creates the following two additional complexities for sampling of : (1) stocks are unmarked but contain ; and (2) marked fish do not necessarily contain . Therefore, all fish, not just marked fish (with an adipose fin-clip), must be sampled for . Detection of in unmarked fish requires electronic sampling using wands or tubes. Detection of in marked fish requires either field-based electronic sampling or collection of snouts for processing in the laboratory. For complete accounting, fish must be sampled throughout their range, in catch and escapement. Electronic sampling of both unmarked and marked Coho Salmon places an additional burden of time and expense on agencies

At present, the utility of the programs and the programs in general for Coho Salmon is reduced due to low tagging rates, insufficient representation (list which ones lack DITs - look at Table below), low recovery rates, and incomplete coastwide coverage of electronic sampling programs (Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup 2008). In addition, the programs: (1) currently provide overall differences in ocean – can’t discriminate individual fisheries; (2) have sample sizes that are generally small, so confidence limits are wide and estimates of differential impacts are imprecise; (3) are expensive and agencies are reluctant to fund tagging programs; and (4) unmarked fish are unavailable for harvest in MSFs.

Most in the US have indicator stocks and programs. However, some of the programs have been eliminated in recent years due to budgetary constraints. Canada has discontinued all of their Coho Salmon programs. The current Coho Salmon indicator stocks for each and the brood years with groups are listed below. The tag codes used in the Mixed-Stock-Model to develop the FRAM base period for catch years 1986-1997 are also listed below. All groups released within US to date are also listed below.

3.5.1 Wild Stock Tagging programs

When developing the FRAM base period, the CoTC used wild indicator stocks to represent a when the data was available. The figures below summarize data currently reported in on coded-wire-tagged wild Coho Salmon smolts released within the . Most of the reported wild stock tagging has occurred in the Grays Harbor, and Queets ; followed by Strait of Georgia, Hood Canal, Skagit, and Lower Fraser . However, no wild stock tagging has been reported in the Lower Fraser since brood year 2007. Very little wild stock tagging has taken place in the remaining . Not all of the data depicted was used in the MSM and subsequent cohort reconstructions.

Figure 3.1: Total number of wild Coho Salmon smolts caught, tagged, and released by clip status for each Management Unit over brood years 1983 through 2020 (data downloaded from RMIS 9-6-2023).

3.5.2 Hatchery Tagging Programs

When wild stock tagging was insufficient to represent a , the CoTC used hatchery indicator stocks to represent the . The figures below summarize all coded-wire-tagged hatchery Coho Salmon smolts released within the that are currently reported in . The total number of hatchery coded-wire-tagged fish released annually within the has varied over the years, with a low of approximately 1.4 million for brood year 2003 and a high of over 3 million for brood year 2020. With the advent of mass-marking in the 1990s, hatcheries began to release unmarked tag groups as early as brood year 1993. Most of these unmarked and tagged fish are part of a program.

Figure 3.2: Total number of hatchery Coho Salmon smolts released by clip status for all Management Units combined over brood years 1983 through 2020 (data downloaded from RMIS 9-6-2023). “CWT_Unclipped_DIT” refer to tagged fish that are released with an intact adipose fin and are associated with a clipped release group. “CWT_Unclipped” are tagged fish that are unclipped but not associated with another tagged release group. These fish are often associated with new hatchery programs.

Hatchery stock tagging has consistently occurred in every , with the exception of the Stillaguamish and the Hoh where very few hatchery fish are released. Double-index-tagging programs were implemented in all but the Stillaguamish and the Hoh ; however, programs currently exist only in the US .

Figure 3.3: Total number of tagged hatchery Coho Salmon smolts released by clip status for each over brood years 1983 through 2020 (data downloaded from RMIS 9-6-2023). “CWT_Unclipped_DIT” refer to tagged fish that are released with an intact adipose fin and are associated with a clipped release group. “CWT_Unclipped” are tagged fish that are unclipped but not associated with another tagged release group. These fish are often associated with new hatchery programs.

3.5.3 Total Hatchery Production

Reported hatchery production across the varies widely, from approximately 33,000 on average annually in the Stillaguamish MU , to an average of 5.4 million smolts released into the Strait of Georgia annually (data summarized over brood years 1983-2020). Prior to the advent of mass marking, some hatchery fish were released coded-wire-tagged with their adipose-fin clipped to identify it as a tagged fish, while the remaining fish were released unclipped and untagged. Beginning in 1995, programs began and their associated releases were mass-marked. Now, almost all of the hatchery production released into the in the US are mass-marked.

Figure 3.4: Total number of hatchery Coho Salmon smolts released by tag and clip status for each over brood years 1983 through 2020 (data downloaded from RMIS 9-6-2023). “CWT_Unclipped_DIT” refer to tagged fish that are released with an intact adipose fin and are associated with a clipped release group. “CWT_Unclipped” are tagged fish that are unclipped but not associated with another tagged release group. These fish are often associated with new hatchery programs.

4 Performance of Abundance Based Management Regime

In an attempt to evaluate the implementation of Abundance Based Management of Coho Salmon stocks of concern under the , summaries on abundance categories, exploitation, and forecast performance are provided below. Catch years summarized include 2004 through 2021 and abundance category and forecast performance summaries are limited to US and Interior Fraser River . A single year of post-season estimates of abundances, fishery exploitation, and escapement is first completed two years following each catch year. For example, an assessment of catch year 2022 will be completed in February of 2024. This report has been referred to as the Annual ER Report. This assessment is presented to the Southern Panel at the ’s Annual Meeting and the reports are posted on the CoTC’s and Southern Panel’s Sharepoint sites. The best available data and the most current FRAM base period and Terminal Area Management Modules (TAMMs) are used to evaluate the catch year; however, data and the FRAM base period is updated or corrected on occasion. These corrections and additions are carried forward and are included in the post-season evaluations of below, sometimes resulting in changes from the annual reports in estimates of , escapement numbers, and Ocean Age-3 abundances.

4.1 Management Unit Post-season Abundances and Categories

Currently all of the except the Lower Fraser River and Georgia Strait have abundance break point criteria and associated for each abundance category. During catch years 2004 through 2021, were considered Abundant 43% of the time, Moderate 24% of the time, and the remaining 32% were in Low status. Interior Fraser was assigned Low status throughout the entire period assessed. US Inside were assigned an Abundant status less often (39% of the time) than US Outside (60%), while they were both assigned Low status nearly at equal rates (26 vs 24%). Over this 18 year period, it appears that Low status was more often assigned post-season beginning with catch year 2015, when 80% were in Low status. During catch years 2015 to present, 50% of the assignments were Low status. The US Strait of Juan de Fuca, Queets, and Grays Harbor were assigned Low status in three or more consecutive catch years beginning with catch year 2015. A summary of abundances and associated categories are provided in the following table and figure.

Table 4.1: Post-season estimates of Ocean Age-3 total abundances and their associated status categories [A = abundant, M = moderate, L= low] by MU for catch years 2004 through 2021. Management Units in the Abundant category have green highlighted cells, Moderate ones are not highlighted, and those in Low status are highlighted orange.

PSC_StockName	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Canada
Lower Fraser	67,385	16,843	17,386	74,841	3,471	21,561	26,647	16,809	16,819	16,872	4,107	16,863	48,764	16,802	48,897	42,572	85,395	47,539	78,093
Interior Fraser	46,451	15,999	8,800	66,052	18,015	25,063	43,318	30,292	65,014	71,415	26,551	15,021	64,867	26,777	38,098	54,777	82,191	87,210	80,129
Strait of Georgia	306,419	48,138	51,218	220,554	15,361	65,107	80,449	26,576	28,866	57,344	42,333	12,750	12,356	12,636	45,757	32,727	109,574	140,232	128,444
US Inside
Skagit	169,157 [A]	52,362 [M]	11,518 [L]	84,423 [A]	35,458 [M]	87,600 [A]	64,581 [A]	78,116 [A]	139,009 [A]	150,661 [A]	51,696 [M]	15,512 [L]	44,736 [M]	22,278 [L]	36,911 [M]	27,499 [M]	41,468 [M]	111,989 [A]	124,042 [A]
Stillaguamish	66,035 [A]	30,687 [A]	10,804 [M]	51,708 [A]	16,874 [M]	30,871 [A]	16,753 [M]	61,324 [A]	60,518 [A]	78,066 [A]	49,138 [A]	5,455 [L]	15,619 [M]	6,918 [L]	30,885 [A]	16,165 [M]	24,654 [A]	42,702 [A]	59,711 [A]
Snohomish	289,505 [A]	133,924 [A]	94,754 [M]	157,393 [A]	49,412 [L]	134,407 [A]	54,375 [M]	137,411 [A]	175,650 [A]	175,980 [A]	66,635 [M]	27,593 [L]	54,137 [M]	23,190 [L]	77,581 [M]	48,671 [L]	47,717 [L]	109,873 [M]	93,201 [M]
Hood Canal	199,071 [A]	54,731 [A]	51,153 [A]	88,814 [A]	40,827 [M]	58,159 [A]	14,526 [L]	56,824 [A]	125,109 [A]	37,882 [M]	69,596 [A]	63,699 [A]	31,828 [M]	34,963 [M]	18,696 [L]	14,666 [L]	23,616 [M]	45,719 [A]	20,007 [M]
US Strait JDF	21,816 [M]	10,933 [L]	4,184 [L]	8,613 [L]	3,487 [L]	16,743 [M]	20,053 [M]	11,715 [M]	12,534 [M]	9,800 [L]	13,811 [M]	4,711 [L]	8,692 [L]	5,856 [L]	5,939 [L]	5,258 [L]	9,200 [L]	22,440 [M]	18,396 [M]
US Outside
Quillayute	14,090 [A]	20,820 [A]	9,455 [M]	10,672 [A]	10,018 [M]	12,475 [A]	17,083 [A]	13,348 [A]	12,815 [A]	15,788 [A]	17,258 [A]	4,800 [L]	11,696 [A]	12,931 [A]	8,666 [M]	10,905 [A]	9,107 [M]	11,578 [A]	16,266 [A]
Hoh	5,366 [A]	8,217 [A]	2,064 [L]	4,904 [A]	3,970 [A]	12,023 [A]	11,375 [A]	12,978 [A]	8,089 [A]	9,152 [A]	9,136 [A]	2,928 [M]	5,417 [A]	6,044 [A]	3,739 [A]	5,157 [A]	5,386 [A]	7,790 [A]	11,686 [A]
Queets	13,445 [A]	12,149 [A]	8,695 [M]	6,828 [L]	7,335 [M]	18,733 [A]	20,070 [A]	15,170 [A]	9,194 [M]	9,932 [A]	12,903 [A]	2,748 [L]	6,070 [L]	6,797 [L]	3,446 [L]	3,944 [L]	5,126 [L]	5,261 [L]	17,811 [A]
Grays Harbor	68,872 [A]	73,009 [A]	26,881 [L]	34,718 [L]	51,708 [M]	113,275 [A]	117,353 [A]	86,208 [A]	103,923 [A]	80,323 [A]	152,912 [A]	31,714 [L]	35,331 [L]	37,344 [L]	60,777 [A]	50,994 [M]	31,581 [L]	77,315 [A]	79,356 [A]

Estimated post-season ocean age-3 cohort abundances for the are depicted below. Abundances for BC and US Inside tend to be synchronous, with above- or below-average abundances occurring in the same years (e.g., high in 2001, low in 2006). Outside are less synchronous and years with high abundances for Grays Harbor don’t necessarily correspond to high abundances for other .

Figure 4.1: Estimated Post-season Ocean Age-3 Abundances of BC Coho Salmon Management Units

Figure 4.2: Estimated Post-season Ocean Age-3 Abundances of US Inside Coho Salmon Management Units

Figure 4.3: Estimated Post-season Ocean Age-3 Abundances of US Outside Coho Salmon Management Units

Figure 4.4: Summary of the number of in each abundance category each year, based on post-season assessments of Ocean Age-3 Abundances.

4.1.1 Fishery Exploitaion Rate Overview

Recent catch years with the highest estimated average over all include catch years 2014 (42%) and 2015 (43%), while the experienced the lowest , on average, in catch years 2016 (16%) and 2021 (14%). Estimates of post-season total by for catch years 2011 through 2021 are listed in the table below, while average by and FRAM fishery are depicted in the figures below.

Canadian

Over catch years 2011 through 2021, the Canadian experienced varying from a low of 6.5% by the Strait of Georgia in 2021 to a high of 56.8% by the Lower Fraser in 2014. The averaged 21.5% over all years for the Lower Fraser River , followed by the Interior Fraser at 16.9%, and Strait of Georgia at 16.8%.

US Inside

US Inside were the lowest for the US Strait of Juan de Fuca at 3.0% in 2016 and were the highest at 68.3% for the Hood Canal in 2014. The averaged 48.5% over all years for the Hood Canal , followed by the Skagit at 39.6%, Snohomish at 23.8%, Stillaguamish at 21.3%, and US Strait of Juan de Fuca at 10.2%.

US Outside

Over catch years 2011 through 2021, the US Outdside also experienced a large range of , from a low of 3.8% by the Quillayute in 2021 to a high of 69.0% by the Hoh in 2013. The averaged 41.7% over all years for the Hoh , followed by the Quillayute at 36.6%, the Queets at 34.8%, the Grays Harbor at 34.6%, and Strait of Georgia at 16.8%.

(ToDo - need to move Canadian MUs to top of table and bold the values when the ERs exceeded the caps)

Total exploitation rates by MU, catch years 2011 through 2021.

PSC_StockName	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
US Inside
Skagit	43.8%	33.3%	43.1%	52.0%	62.7%	19.9%	9.4%	48.4%	48.2%	42.6%	32.6%	25.6%
Stillaguamish	18.5%	25.4%	22.6%	27.1%	46.6%	16.5%	11.8%	22.5%	20.3%	12.6%	10.6%	9.9%
Snohomish	18.9%	25.6%	28.5%	30.6%	53.6%	18.5%	21.5%	25.1%	17.2%	10.6%	11.2%	8.1%
Hood Canal	57.1%	58.6%	57.7%	68.3%	58.7%	40.1%	35.6%	57.3%	46.1%	28.7%	24.8%	54.1%
US Strait JDF	8.4%	12.1%	13.7%	16.8%	18.1%	3.0%	5.6%	7.9%	12.0%	7.1%	7.1%	7.7%
US Outside
Quillayute	39.6%	54.4%	55.3%	57.1%	47.1%	18.4%	42.3%	29.7%	37.2%	17.2%	3.7%	18.8%
Hoh	39.2%	50.8%	69.0%	51.8%	39.2%	7.9%	42.9%	34.4%	56.6%	49.2%	17.9%	30.4%
Queets	40.1%	49.8%	38.2%	42.2%	36.3%	24.9%	22.9%	35.9%	41.3%	41.8%	9.7%	30.1%
Grays Harbor	38.9%	47.1%	44.4%	44.9%	48.5%	11.5%	32.3%	21.9%	39.6%	28.6%	22.4%	28.8%
Canada
Lower Fraser	23.6%	17.9%	27.6%	56.8%	42.0%	12.4%	12.4%	12.0%	14.0%	9.6%	7.7%	10.3%
Interior Fraser	14.3%	14.5%	20.6%	35.3%	24.0%	9.2%	9.7%	15.3%	20.0%	13.4%	9.5%	12.4%
Strait of Georgia	16.5%	15.9%	25.8%	32.1%	30.1%	9.9%	9.7%	14.3%	16.2%	7.4%	6.5%	8.8%

4.1.2 Forecast Performance

Forecasts are integral to Coho Salmon management in the Pacific Northwest. These forecasts, as described earlier, are used in pre-season assessments to determine allowable fishing mortality on stocks of concern. In the absence of in-season management controls, forecasts that are too high may yield higher than agreed to exploitation of management units of concern. Forecasts that are too low may yield losses in fishing opportunities.

Pre-season forecasts of all of the over the catch years 2004 through 2021 have often (63%) been within the abundance based categories assigned post-season. Forecasts were too high 24% of the time and too low 13% of the time. The forecasts for catch years 2005 and 2011 were very good, resulting in no change in abundance categories from pre- to post-season estimates of abundance. Forecasts were poor for catch years 2006, 2015, and 2021, where less than 50% of the forecasted were within the abundance category assigned post-season. There does not appear to be an obvious trend in forecast performance of abundance categories across all with available forecasts over catch years 2004 through 2021.

Figure 4.5: Comparison of pre-season abundance to post-season abundance based on whether the abundance category was correctly predicted, for all MUs.

Pre-season forecasts for the five US Inside over catch years 2004 through 2021 were within the abundance based categories assigned post-season 54% of the time, too high 28% of the time, and too low 18% of the time. Forecasting was poor for catch years 2006 and 2010, where only 1 was forecasted within the abundance category assigned post-season. In addition, only two of the five forecasted were within the abundance category assigned post-season in each of eight additional catch years. Forecasts were more often correct (72% of the years) for the Hood Canal , followed by the US Strait of Juan de Fuca (56%), Skagit and Stillaguamish (50%), and least correct for the Snohomish (44% of the years).

Figure 4.6: Comparison of pre-season abundance to post-season abundance based on whether the abundance category was correctly predicted, for US Inside MUs.

Forecasts for the US Outside performed better, on average, than the US Inside forecasts of abundance categories. Pre-season forecasts for the four US Outside over catch years 2004 through 2021 were within the abundance based categories assigned post-season 64% of the time, too high 25% of the time, and too low 11% of the time. The forecasts for catch years 2005, 2009-2011, and 2014 were very good, resulting in no change in abundance categories from pre- to post-season estimates of abundance. Forecasting performance was poor for catch years 2006, 2015, and 2021. Forecasts were more often correct (72% of the years) for the Hoh and Quillayute , followed by the Queets (61%), and least correct for the Grays Harbor (50% of the years).

Figure 4.7: Comparison of pre-season abundance to post-season abundance based on whether the abundance category was correctly predicted, for US Outside MUs.

4.2 Management Unit Descriptions and Assessment of Performance

This section of the report focuses on descriptions of the individual within the current .

4.2.1 Interior Fraser River

This description was prepared by Canadian members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.1.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Interior Fraser River (IFR) consists of Coho Salmon that re-colonized the IFR and tributaries above Hells Gate in the Fraser Canyon (Figure 4.8) at the end of the last period of glaciation, colonizing from glacial refugia in the Columbia River basin (Northcote and Larkin 1989). Hells Gate in the Fraser Canyon was identified as a natural boundary that separates Fraser River Coho Salmon populations into Interior and Lower Fraser units. The Coho Salmon encompasses the North, South and mainstem Thompson river drainages as well as the mainstem Fraser River beginning at Fraser Pass in Mount Robson Provincial Park and terminating at Hells Gate.

Within the , five distinct Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) for Coho Salmon have been designated using molecular genetics and ecotypology (Table 4.2) (Holtby and Ciruna 2007). These populations correspond to the five major Coho Salmon bearing regions within the Interior Fraser River; three within the Thompson (North Thompson, South Thompson, and Lower Thompson regions) and two within the Fraser (the area between the Fraser Canyon and the Thompson-Fraser confluence and the Fraser River and tributaries above the Thompson-Fraser confluence).

Migration among different Thompson River basins and between Thompson and non-Thompson drainages is sufficiently restricted to permit local adaptations to occur (Irvine et al. 2000). Coho Salmon of the Fraser Canyon population are quite distinct from other Coho Salmon populations, and appear to be partially related to those of the Lower Fraser River, implying that some genetic exchange may occur between those areas. Irvine et al. (2000) noted that, based on genetic information, subdivision of the designated unit beyond these five populations was not warranted. However, while the genetic data does not suggest the presence of additional populations, many of the five populations comprise vast areas of the Fraser River basin, within which demographically independent groups may exist. Such groups have been defined as sub-populations (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). Sub-populations within a population may not be isolated enough from each other to be differentiated based on neutral allele composition; however, they may have different life history traits, productivities, and population dynamics. Generally, the distance in spawning areas between sub-populations reduces their ability to act as source populations if a major mortality event occurs in freshwater that only impacts one sub-population (e.g., Big Bar landslide occurred in-between two pre-defined sub-populations).

Figure 4.8: Pacific Salmon Treaty Coho boundaries in Canada. Note: The Georgia Basin West has since been renamed Strait of Georgia Vancouver Island (SGVI) and Georgia Basin East is now Strait of Georgia Mainland (SGML).

Figure 4.9: Interior and Lower Fraser MU Watersheds

Table 4.2: Populations and Sub-populations within the Interior Fraser Coho Salmon Management Unit

Population	Description
Fraser Canyon	Coho salmon originating from the Fraser River and tributaries upstream of Hells Gate and downstream of the Fraser-Thompson confluence. No sub-populations.
Middle Fraser	Coho salmon originating from the Fraser River and tributaries upstream of the Fraser-Thompson confluence. Two subpopulations: Lower Middle and Upper Middle Fraser
North Thompson	Coho salmon originating from the North Thompson River watershed including the mainstem, lakes, and tributaries upstream of the confluence of the North and South Thompson rivers. Three subpopulations: Upper, Middle and Lower North Thompson.
South Thompson	Coho salmon originating from the South Thompson River including the mainstem, lakes, and tributaries upstream of the confluence with the North Thompson River. Three subpopulations: Adams River Drainage, Shuswap Lake tributaries and Shuswap River tributaries.
Lower Thompson	Coho salmon originating in the Lower Thompson River including mainstem, lakes, and tributaries downstream of the confluence of the North and South Thompson rivers. Two subpopulations: Mainstem Lower Thompson tributaries and Nicola River and tributaries.

The entire Fraser River watershed drains a 220,000 km² (85,000 mi²) area with an average flow at the mouth of about 3,475 m³/s (122,700 ft³/s). The average flow is highly seasonal and spring/summer discharge rates can be ten times larger than winter flow.

The Fraser River originates 1370 km from its mouth as a spring at Fraser Pass in the Rocky Mountains near Jasper B.C., then flows north to the Yellowhead Highway and west past Mount Robson to the Rocky Mountain Trench and the Robson Valley near Valemount. It makes a sharp turn to the south at Giscome Portage, meeting the Nechako River at the city of Prince George, then continuing south, joining with the Quesnel River at the town of Quesnel and progressively cutting deeper and deeper into the Fraser Plateau to form the Fraser Canyon from roughly the confluence of the Chilcotin River, near the city of Williams Lake, southwards. It is joined by the Bridge and Seton Rivers at the town of Lillooet, then by the Thompson River at Lytton.

The Thompson River is the largest tributary of the Fraser River and it contains three of the five CUs in the Interior Fraser River . The Thompson River basin drains 56,000 km² (22,000 mi²) with an average flow in the main stem (measured near Spences Bridge before Lytton) of 773 m³/s (27,300 ft³/s). The two major tributaries of the Thompson River, the North and South Thompson rivers, join at the city of Kamloops. The North Thompson originates at the Thompson Glacier near Valemount. The South Thompson River originates from Little Shuswap Lake but there are serval major Coho Salmon spawning systems (e.g., Adams River, Shuswap River, etc) that drain into Shuswap Lake that is connected to Little Shuswap Lake by the Little River.

From Lytton southwards, the Fraser River runs through a progressively deeper canyon between the Lillooet Ranges of the Coast Mountains on its west and the Cascade Mountains on its east. Nahatlatch River, the primary spawning location of the Fraser Canyon , flows into the Fraser River from the west about 24 km (15 mi) upstream of Hell’s Gate. At Hell’s Gate, located immediately downstream of the town of Boston Bar, where the canyon walls narrow dramatically, the entire volume of the river is forced through a canyon 35 m (115 ft) wide. At Yale, the canyon opens up and the river is wider, though without much adjoining lowland until Hope, where the river begins to form a broad plain travelling 130 more kilometres and meeting up with four more major tributaries (Chilliwack, Harrison, Sumas and Pitt rivers), from Yale to the Port Mann Bridge at Coquitlam it picks up an average of 30% more flow before discharging into the Strait of Georgia.

Recreational, environmental conservation, and commercial forest activities are prevalent in all areas of the IFR Coho Salmon basin to varying degrees across the five . The Fraser Canyon is primarily only impacted by forestry. The other four CUs are impacted largely by forestry and agriculture. The entire is impacted by development and linearization in the lower Fraser River, which could impact juvenile rearing and smolting as well as early upstream adult migration. Further descriptions of habitat status and land use can be found in COSEWIC 2016 and (Arbeider 2020).

There are no major dams or other large anthropogenic fish passage impediments located in the . Under certain conditions, water velocities in the Fraser River at Hells Gate in the Fraser Canyon, and in the area referred to as Little Hells Gate in the North Thompson River near Avola could impede upstream passage. In 1914 a major landslide occurred in Hells Gate that greatly impeded salmon passage. The slide was mostly cleared in 1915 but construction of fishways began in 1944 after research was conducted by the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission (IPSFC) (International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission 1945).

4.2.1.2 Management Framework

Objectives

The Coho Salmon is managed by and contains five natural (wild) populations (or ), each with 1-3 subpopulations as described by the Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). Hatchery production is auxiliary to the but integral to the objectives.

Since the decline in abundance of Coho Salmon in the 1990s, many fisheries within Canada have been managed to minimize catch of natural-origin Coho Salmon to align with the Sustainable Fisheries Framework; with abundance and survival based objectives eventually being implemented. Sub-population-level abundance based objectives were first identified by the IFCRT and have since been expanded on through several assessments ((Decker et al. 2014); (Korman et al. 2019)). Following engagement with First Nations and stakeholders, combined abundance and survival objectives were formalized. The survival portion of the objectives rely on hatchery-reared CWT indicator stocks, which have been used as an index that correlates with overall productivity of the Coho Salmon . Therefore, the Coho Salmon is managed such that all sub-populations are maintained within the and with the relative productivity of the population also dictating caps.

In 1998, with the recognition of productivity declines affecting Coho Salmon survival, announced that the objective of their fishery management actions would be conservation of wild Coho Salmon. Canadian fisheries were planned to produce no greater than 3-5% mortality on Thompson River Coho Salmon in order to increase numbers of naturally spawning Coho Salmon in the and thereby reverse declining trends in abundance. Though no change in Coho status was determined, fisheries in 2014 were planned with a cap of 16% Canadian to maximize fishing opportunities on abundant sockeye returns through increased allowance of IFC bycatch. In 2015, the Canadian fisheries were planned to be no more than 10%. Since 2016, Canadian was planned to be between 3-5% and US fisheries were allowed up to 10% .

In 2018, work was completed to identify potential caps and allocations (DFO 2018, (Korman et al. 2019)). At low status, each country has a cap of 10%, for a total bilateral cap of 20%. At moderate status, the US cap is 12% with a bilateral cap of 30%, leaving Canada a default cap of 18%. At abundant status, the US cap is 15% with a bilateral cap of 45%, leaving Canada a default cap of 30%. Previous caps that were suggested included 20% at Low status, 40% at Moderate, and 65% at Abundant.

Management Reference Points were developed that incorporate biological reference points from a number of previous sources (Table 4.3). The Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006) determined that a lower benchmark should maintain a minimum 3-year geometric average abundance of 1,000 naturally spawning wild (or natural-origin) Coho Salmon in at least half of the subpopulations (11 subpopulations) within each of the five local populations (CUs; 1-3 subpopulations per ). This was based on consideration of the effective population size necessary to conserve genetic diversity (Waples 2002).

An empirical analysis conducted by the (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006) and a more recent IFC Risk Assessment report (Decker et al. 2014) indicated that a total escapement of 20,000 25,000 (3-year geometric mean) would be required to meet the IFCRT above mentioned objective. This benchmark exceeds 7,000 spawners (exactly half of the subpopulations) because the subpopulations differ in productivity and potential carrying capacity, and they would not all be expected to have the same status at any one time. The analysis was updated in 2018 (Korman et al. 2019) and produced a similar total escapement target, 28,000, to achieve the aforementioned objective but did not use a 3-year geometric mean in their analysis.

By comparison, the IFCRT’s lower benchmark is about half of the benchmark of 35,000 50,000 individuals proposed by Irvine et al. (2001), This benchmark was derived from the reference points of 4.3 and 6.1 females per km, assuming a 1:1 sex ratio, and converting the female density values to escapements using the IFCRT’s estimate of 4,071 linear kms of suitable spawning habitat for the Coho Salmon in the interior Fraser River watershed (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006).

An upper benchmark of 1,000 naturally spawning wild (or natural-origin) Coho Salmon in every subpopulation was proposed by the Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team (2006) as a rebuilding objective, which was indicated as having a high probability of success around 40,000 spawners (3-year geometric mean). A logistic regression performed by Decker et al. (2014) predicted that the probability of meeting the long term objective increased from near 0% at an aggregate escapement of 18,000, to 50% at 31,000, to 98% at 40,000. The logistic regression analysis was preformed again in 2018 (Korman et al. 2019) but reported that the 95% probability of meeting the long-term objective was 91,000 spawners, but they did not analyze the data using 3-year geometric means.

The most recent Coho Wild Salmon Policy (WSP) Status assessment (Parken et al., unpublished) used spawner recruit analysis to determine 80% SMSY (17,146) and Sgen (8,654) as proposed delineations between green/amber and amber/red zones. The assessment used an approach where WSP status was determined through an integration of a number of sources of information including abundance over time and productivity. The stock recruit information was generally thought to be of low value in the determination of status as the error bounds indicated a high degree of uncertainty.

The work in 2018 to identify potential Management Reference Points (DFO 2018, (Korman et al. 2019)) included spawner escapement but also a CWT smolt-to-adult (or “marine”) survival index (last column of Table below). It was apparent that the decrease in recruitment that occurred in the early 1990s coincided with a decrease in survival, based on the CWT survival index. The original proposed reference points were solely based on survival, but after engagement workshops, both survival and abundance metrics were included in the reference points. The Low status threshold is triggered if the survival index is less than or equal to 3%. A moderate status is assigned when at least three consecutive years of survival are greater than 3% and there are three consecutive years where either half of the subpopulations in each have greater than 1,000 spawners or the moderate aggregate escapement objective is met (e.g. 27,000 spawners). An abundant status is assigned when at least three consecutive years of survival are greater than 6% and there are three consecutive years where either half of the subpopulations in each have greater than 1,000 spawners or the abundant aggregate escapement objective is met (e.g., 40,000 spawners).

Table 4.3: Previous proposed biological reference points and current Management Reference Point (circa 2018).

Benchmark/Status	IFCRT	Irvine et al. 2001	Decker et al. 2014	WSP Benchmarks	2018 Management Reference Points
Upper/Abundant	1,000 (3-year geomean) in each subpop	NA	50% at 31,000 3-year geomean, to 98% at 40,000 3-year geomean	80% of SMSY 17,146	Three consecutive years of survival > 0.06 & IFCRT upper benchmark OR upper Aggregate MU objective
Lower/Moderate	1,000 (3-year geomean) in half the sub-populations within each CU (20-25K 3-year geomean)	35K to 50K (4.3 to 6.0 females/km)	20K 3-year geomean	Sgen = 8,654 *similar to the lowest IFR abundance observed	Three consecutive years of survival > 0.03 & IFCRT lower benchmark OR lower Aggregate MU objective

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

(Add more summary stats here)

Primarily, coded-wire-tagged smolt releases from Spius hatchery and Chilliwack hatchery, into the Eagle River and Salmon River in the South Thompson and the Coldwater River in the Lower Thompson , and subsequent high precision escapement exercises (primarily fence counts), provide survival rates and act as the indicator stocks for the . Catch of tagged Coho Salmon is recorded by the Mark-Recovery Program. Adipose-fin-clipped and coded-wire-tagged smolt releases into the Eagle River average 47,000; releases into the Coldwater River average 54,000; and releases into the Salmon river average 29,000.

From 1997 to 2002 DIT releases occurred in the Coldwater River (Obrien, in draft)(Table 4.4) and attempts at wild marking in the Eagle River from 2000 to 2009 were unsuccessful due to low capture rates.

Table 4.4: Interior Fraser DIT summary for brood years 1997-2002.

Brood Year	Return Year	Unmarked Releases	Unmarked Escaped	Marked Releases	Marked Escaped	Rel λ	Esc λ	Odds Ratio	Lower CI	Upper CI
1997	2000	38312	256	34949	215	1.096	1.191	0.91	0.91	1.3
1998	2001	71676	1343	64916	1264	1.104	1.063	0.89	0.89	1.04
1999	2002	37012	1325	34664	1269	1.068	1.044	0.90	0.90	1.06
2000	2003	30987	158	39091	239	0.793	0.661	0.68	0.68	1.02
2001	2004	38838	313	35586	175	1.091	1.789	1.36	1.36	1.97
2002	2005	41576	166	42100	94	0.988	1.766	1.39	1.39	2.31

Historically, coded-wire-tagged smolts were also released into Dunn, Louis, Lemieux, and Spius creeks and the Deadman River and were used to derive smolt-to-adult survival or were used in the base period of FRAM.

Figure 4.10: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Interior Fraser MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.11: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery Coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Interior Fraser MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

In 1999, forecasts for southern BC Coho Salmon included Coho for the first time (Holtby et al. 1999). Relative numbers of Coho Salmon returning to the North and South Thompson drainages were predicted. Forecasts for other Coho Salmon populations were not made since data quality was sometimes less than adequate. Forecasting for Coho Salmon returning to the entire Interior Fraser drainage (recruitment, not escapement) began in 2001 and continues annually (e.g. DFO 2012).

Originally, Holtby et al. (1999) concluded that given the data the 3-year average Naïve model (3YRA) was the preferred approach to forecast relative numbers of North and South Thompson Coho Salmon. The model uses the average abundance of the last three return years to forecast the abundance of the next year. As the quality and time-series of information improved in the Lower Thompson River systems those data were included in the annual abundance forecast. The performance of the time-series model is influenced by shifts in the parameters which influence abundance, but the parameters are not dealt with explicitly in the approach. For example, in periods of apparently stable marine survival and low exploitation the 3YRA model is likely adequate to confirm the status of the ; however, annual shifts in productivity (marine or freshwater) or errors in the estimates can result in poor forecast performance.

In more recent forecasts, the forecast model has been chosen by reviewing retrospective performance metrics. Retrospective performance metrics such as mean raw error, mean absolute error, mean percent error, mean absolute percent error, mean absolute scaled error, root mean square error, and the correlation coefficient between forecasts and observed series were calculated to rank the model performance and determine which model performs the best across the time series. For the top performing models, model diagnostics were examined in order to determine if the models reasonably predicted trends in abundance and to ensure that models did not violate assumptions. Both time series models such as the Naïve models (1, 3, and 5 years), ARIMA, and Exponential Smoothing were applied with various data transformations, and a linearized Ricker model that incorporates stock-recruit dynamics are ranked to determine which is used for the forecast each year. The 3YRA has still ranked the highest in most years.

Escapement Monitoring

Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon spawner assessments have changed over the years based on management priorities and available resources, both in terms of the number of systems surveyed and the extent of coverage. Though spawner estimates exist for a few systems prior to 1975 and the accuracy and precision of those estimates are not understood. Between 1975 and 1997, more effort was expended to estimate escapement in the North and South Thompson CUs. Survey coverage was extended in 1984 to include several key tributaries of the Lower Thompson , as well as the Seton and Bridge tributaries of the Middle Fraser . Surveys were mainly conducted by Fisheries Officers and hatchery staff; however, the repeatability, and accuracy of these estimates remain poorly understood.

Beginning in 1998, coverage within all CUs increased with respect to both the number of systems assessed and the extent of coverage within previously assessed systems. Coverage was increased to include the Nahatlatch River (Fraser Canyon ) and Quesnel watershed in the Middle Fraser ; and in 1999 assessment began in the Chilko watershed (Middle Fraser ). In addition, more robust methods were employed, including sonar and fence counts, Area-Under-the-Curve (AUC) methodology, mark-recapture, and the calculation of survey life for AUC and expansion factors for peak count estimates based on paired assessments using high precision methods and visual surveys.

Escapement estimates for 1975 to 1997 were revised during the IFCRT recovery teams review (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). Revisions were based on calibration studies where paired assessments were conducted between 1998 and 2000. The calibration approach was described in detail in the Conservation Strategy for Coho Salmon, Interior River Populations (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). It is important to note that escapement estimates for the Middle Fraser and Fraser Canyon CUs for 1975-1997, and for the Lower Thompson for 1975-1983 are based entirely on average ratios of abundance in these CUs to combined abundance in the North and South Thompson CUs during the period from 1998 to 2000 (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). This introduces a substantial degree of uncertainty in the reliably of the earlier portion of the time series for these CUs. Escapement by assessment type is illustrated in (Figure 4.12).

Figure 4.12: Escapement of Interior Fraser River Coho by quality of assessment type.

Fry and Smolt Monitoring

There have been no consistent or basin-wide assessments of fry or smolt densities within the .

Smolt-to-adult survival rates of Coho Salmon from the indicator stocks are shown in (Figure 4.13). Marked Coho Salmon (adipose-fin-clipped) have been released with since 1983 to support fisheries monitoring and creation of a survival index. Although all of these releases may be used for calculating exploitation, some releases included experimental release sizes or timings that may affect survival. It has been shown that there is strong size-selective mortality in the early marine period ((Beamish and Mahnken 2001); (Beamish et al. 2004), etc); therefore, releases need to be fairly uniform to support a long-term survival index. The survival of the Inch Creek index is thus calculated from specific tag codes releases that do not fall out of a normal range of size at release. The index calculation is simply the sum of adult (age 3+) escapement and catch of all tag codes from a given brood year divided by the total release of that given brood year.

For the hatchery indicator stocks the smolt-to-adult survival rate showed a directed downward trend during the early 1990s (brood years) (Figure 4.13). Data from brood years 1985-1999 shows the smolt-to-adult survival rate averaged 3.7% during this time with a high of 7.2% in 1989. More recently Coho Salmon has had an average survival rate of 1.0% between brood years 2000-2017.

Figure 4.13: Smolt-to-adult survival rate index from coded-wire-tagged () Interior Fraser River hatchery Coho smolt releases by brood year. Note that insufficient adipose-fin-clipped smolt releases existed prior 1985 and from brood year 1987 to calculate survival; infilled values are the average of the survival up to and including brood year 1991.

Fishery Monitoring

A fundamental requirement of abundance-based Coho Salmon management under the is that all fishery impacts on individual be annually monitored with respect to both number of fish caught and . This requires basic reporting of total impacts by fishery and the capacity to estimate each fishery’s -specific impacts. Total fishing mortalities for each must be estimated to enable managers the ability to evaluate the annual relative to the -prescribed impact limits.

Assessments of total fishing mortalities for each must include both directed and incidentally-landed catch as well as estimates of non-landed mortalities. These estimates may be obtained through monitoring programs or, in some cases, generated through the use of algorithms built into the Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM). Monitoring programs may involve test fisheries or data collected directly from fishers (e.g., through creel survey interviews, and other fisher-reported techniques, such as log books or fish-tickets). Estimation of non-landed fishing mortality requires annual estimates of encounter rates by fishery and gear.

Management-Unit-specific impacts are generally evaluated using the coast-wide system. This system manages information on the release and recovery of coded-wire tags. The volume of tags recovered for a given will depend on tagging rates, marine survival rates, exploitation and escapement rates, and sampling rates in fisheries and escapements. A recent review of methods (Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup 2008) recommends target sampling rates of 20% for the landed catch and 20% for escapements, with a minimum of 10 tags collected in each fishery or escapement stratum. Since the introduction of fisheries restrictions in 1997 to protect Coho Salmon, reaching the minimum sampling targets for tagged Coho Salmon has seldom been met.

Post-season estimates are also generated using the Post-Season FRAM Model. Post-season estimates of catch and escapement are entered into the updated FRAM model with the same fishery regulation and effort package used for preseason modeling to generate post-season estimates.

Enhancement

Enhancement in the was initiated in the early 1980s. There have been up to 13 enhancement projects producing Coho Salmon as well as habitat restoration ongoing at various sites. Most of the projects are in the Thompson River drainage, with only minor enhancement occurring in other areas of this . There are also numerous community hatcheries that support Indigenous and community activities through the Community Economic Development and Public Involvement Program.

Production peaked during the mid to late 1980s, when different enhancement strategies were being tested for Coho Salmon in the Eagle, Salmon, and Coldwater systems. The objectives were to evaluate the different strategies and to assess the impact of enhanced production on natural stocks ((Perry 1995), (Pitre and Cross 1993)). Supplementation was in the form of spring fed fry, fall fry, and yearling smolt releases. Fish were marked by removing the adipose fin and inserting a coded-wire tag. The success of the enhanced component was measured using survival rates calculated from tag data, while the success of the naturally spawning component was measured by returns of natural spawners.

More recent Coho Salmon enhancement activity has occurred primarily out of Spius Creek hatchery with support from Chilliwack, Deadman, Mid-Shuswap (Shuswap Falls) and Dunn Creek hatcheries as production capacity requires. The systems that support the survival index continue to be Eagle, Salmon, and Coldwater rivers. Each of these systems use a combination of trap boxes and high precision sonar to estimate both escapement and clip rate, which is then used to estimate escapement.

The following hatcheries produce salmon to support and objectives and are located within the Fraser River watershed: 1) Chehalis River Hatchery, located on a tributary of the Harrison River, which is a major tributary of the lower Fraser River; 2) Chilliwack River Hatchery, located on a major tributary of the lower Fraser River; 3) Inch Creek Hatchery, located on a tributary of a large slough connected to the lower Fraser River; 4) Spius Creek Hatchery, located on a tributary of the Nicola that drains into the Thompson River; and 5) Shuswap Falls (Middle Shuswap River) Hatchery. Both the Chilliwack River Hatchery and Spius Creek Hatchery rear Coho Salmon for the indicator stocks for the Interior Fraser River .

The average total hatchery release within the basin was 737,000 fish annually between 1983-2018. Fry releases greatly decreased starting in 1990, from a high of 2,226,000 Coho Salmon fry released for brood year 1986 to a low of 90,500 fry from brood year 1996 (Figure 4.14). After 1996, the total hatchery fry releases have averaged 173,000, primarily in unmarked fry released from community hatcheries. The average hatchery smolt releases within the basin is 227,000 smolts annually between 1983-2018; with relatively smaller fluctuations between total releases.

Since the late 1990s, enhancement for Coho Salmon has taken one of three forms: 1) conservation enhancement, used to protect demes that are at risk of extirpation; 2) assessment enhancement, where releases of marked fish provide information for assessment of survival and minimal encounter rates and ocean distribution; and 3) rebuilding enhancement, where hatchery supplementation is used to increase escapements (Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team 2006). Enhancement activities are described in more detail by Irvine et al. (1999b), Irvine et al. (2000) and the Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team (2006). Coded wire tagged and total releases are summarized in Figure 4.14.

Figure 4.14: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Interior Fraser , brood years 1983 through 2020.

With the advent of technology to automatically remove adipose fins and/or insert using mobile “tagging trailers”, mass marking of hatchery fish was implemented for many Coho Salmon in the mid-1990s (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee 1999). Mass marking allows mark selective fisheries (MSF) for Coho Salmon in which marked hatchery fish can be retained and unmarked wild fish released, resulting in higher harvest rates on hatchery fish than wild fish. Mass marking was not fully implemented for Coho Salmon from the Fraser River. Only indicator stocks have consistently been marked with both an adipose clip and a and are used in stock assessment. Mark-selective fisheries in Canada are limited; however, a program was operated between brood years 1997-2002 but results were variable and the report unpublished (Table 4.4).

4.2.1.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

(add more description here)

Table 4.5: Return year observed and forecasted Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon MU pre-fishery abundances from 1998 to 2019. Pre-fishery abundance is estimated by backwards FRAM.

Return Year	Forecast Type	Forecast Abundance	Estimated Abundance	Difference	Absolute Percent Error
1998	3 year average	62529	32124	30405	0.95
1999	3 year average	47069	28821	18248	0.63
2000	3 year average	32548	25674	6874	0.27
2001	3 year average	28873	69815	40942	0.59
2002	3 year average	41437	64647	23211	0.36
2003	3 year average	53379	27168	26211	0.96
2004	3 year average	53877	49562	4315	0.09
2005	3 year average	47126	17604	29522	1.68
2006	3 year average	31445	11483	19962	1.74
2007	3 year average	26216	69338	43121	0.62
2008	3 year average	32808	19775	13033	0.66
2009	3 year average	33532	26712	6820	0.26
2010	3 year average	38608	46197	7589	0.16
2011	3 year average	30895	33104	2210	0.07
2012	3 year average	35338	65581	30243	0.46
2013	3 year average	48294	71295	23001	0.32
2014	3 year average	56660	28986	27674	0.95
2015	3 year average	55287	16175	39112	2.42
2016	Like Last Year	16175	66032	51772	0.78
2017	3 year average	37065	28022	9043	0.32
2018	3 year average	36743	40758	4015	0.10
2019	Like Last Year	40758	65106	20168	0.31

Figure 4.15: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Interior Fraser MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. The marine distribution data of marked Coho Salmon populations in Canada was obtained through the Mark Recovery Program (MRP), operated by . Recoveries of coded-wire tagged and adipose-fin-clipped (AFC) marked Coho Salmon from various fisheries provide information on fishery and apparent marine distributions.

During the base period, Coho Salmon production from the contributed to US and Canadian marine sport and commercial fisheries in southern BC, the northern Washington coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and inner Puget Sound (Figure 4.16). In general, most were recovered from commercial troll and sport fisheries operating during the summer months off the west coast of Vancouver Island and in the Strait of Georgia. The proportion of the catch of Coho Salmon from fisheries within the Strait of Georgia (inside) compared to fisheries operating off the west coast of Vancouver Island (outside) has varied considerably among years (Figure 4.17). These variations have been correlated with changes in ocean salinity (Kadowaki 1997). During the 1970s and 1980s, large numbers of Coho Salmon remained inside the Strait of Georgia each year and supported large sport and troll fisheries (Simpson et al. 1997). However, in some recent years, most Coho Salmon leave the Strait of Georgia in the fall of their first year, and have become vulnerable to fisheries operating in outside areas (Irvine et al. 1999a). There are relatively few catch distribution data available for Coho Salmon. However, those that are available support the hypothesis that Coho Salmon have similar distributions to many other southern BC Coho Salmon populations. Beamish and Thomson (1999) suggest that these distribution variations were caused by changing ocean conditions driven by climate. Major fishery closures commencing in 1998 have made it more difficult to infer inside-outside distribution changes. The base period for FRAM contains data from only one outside year, 1991.

Table 4.6: Interior Fraser MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
KMZ Sport	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
Brookings Sport	-	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
Newport Sport	0.03%	0.10%	0.06%	0.01%	-	0.20%
Newport Troll	0.08%	0.23%	0.09%	0.01%	-	0.40%
Coos Bay Sport	0.02%	0.02%	0.02%	-	-	0.07%
Coos Bay Troll	0.03%	0.09%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.14%
Tillamook Sport	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%	-	-	0.05%
Tillamook Troll	0.03%	0.34%	0.10%	0.01%	-	0.48%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.16%	-	-	0.16%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.02%	0.09%	0.11%	-	-	0.22%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.00%	0.04%	-	-	-	0.04%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.02%	0.10%	0.01%	-	0.14%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.06%	0.08%	0.01%	-	0.17%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.04%	0.28%	0.26%	0.08%	-	0.67%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.06%	0.01%	0.05%	0.01%	-	0.12%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.07%	0.10%	0.18%	0.02%	-	0.38%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.03%	0.00%	0.02%	-	0.05%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.27%	0.50%	0.15%	-	0.92%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.55%	0.15%	-	0.72%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.13%	0.40%	0.95%	0.56%	-	2.04%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.02%	0.00%	0.05%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.03%	0.00%	0.04%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.02%	0.13%	0.37%	0.06%	0.59%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.02%	2.24%	0.01%	2.27%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	-	0.02%	3.87%	0.02%	3.90%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.19%	0.63%	1.34%	2.17%	0.17%	4.50%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.03%	0.09%	0.07%	0.68%	0.19%	1.06%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	-	-	0.11%	0.44%	0.41%	0.95%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.40%	0.09%	0.49%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.05%	0.57%	0.12%	0.74%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.01%	-	-	0.04%	0.01%	0.06%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.04%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.35%	0.09%	0.44%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.20%	0.05%	0.26%
WA Area 10E Non-Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 10E Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	-	0.00%	-	-	0.02%	0.02%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.03%	0.02%	0.05%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
Upper Fraser R Term Catch	-	-	-	-	2.00%	2.00%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.41%	0.84%	1.28%	0.16%	0.06%	2.76%
Johnstone Strait Troll	0.03%	0.34%	0.15%	0.14%	-	0.65%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.08%	0.16%	0.01%	-	0.25%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.06%	0.04%	0.17%	-	0.28%
BC South Central Troll	0.03%	1.21%	0.57%	0.12%	-	1.93%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.09%	6.32%	3.08%	1.68%	-	11.17%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.09%	13.65%	14.22%	4.93%	-	32.89%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.13%	2.24%	0.64%	0.57%	-	3.58%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Net	-	0.02%	0.07%	-	-	0.09%
BC Central Net	-	0.04%	0.02%	-	-	0.06%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	0.10%	0.02%	0.12%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.07%	1.17%	0.82%	0.06%	2.12%
Georgia Straits Net	-	-	0.05%	0.06%	0.01%	0.12%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.15%	1.10%	1.16%	2.40%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	-	0.18%	3.71%	4.24%	-	8.12%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.01%	0.22%	0.23%	-	-	0.46%
BC Central Sport	-	0.05%	-	-	-	0.05%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.40%	0.86%	0.40%	2.06%	0.55%	4.27%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	-	0.06%	0.11%	0.05%	-	0.21%
North Georgia Straits Sport	3.75%	2.28%	1.99%	0.84%	0.05%	8.91%
South Georgia Straits Sport	1.87%	0.39%	0.30%	0.23%	0.30%	3.09%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	-	0.02%	0.02%	-	0.04%
SEAK Southeast Troll	-	-	0.03%	-	-	0.03%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.02%	0.07%	0.01%	-	0.10%
SEAK Northeast Troll	-	-	0.02%	-	-	0.02%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	-	0.03%	-	-	0.03%

Total averaged 69% during 1986-1997 and then reductions in harvest starting in 1998 to protect Coho Salmon resulted in a period of low (14.7% average since it has been measured starting in 2004) Table 4.7.

Figure 4.16: Average exploitation rates by fishing area of Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon. The stacked bars represent the rates estimated by gear type during the FRAM base period, catch years 1986–1992.

Figure 4.17: Average exploitation rates by fishing area of Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon, catch years 1998-2013 by gear type.

Figure 4.18: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Interior Fraser by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Over the period of record (1985-2018), the 3-year geometric mean escapement for Interior Fraser Coho Salmon peaked in the mid-1980s at over 70,000 fish, and declined to a running average of less than 18,000 individuals in the late 1990s and for the 2006 to 2008 period (Figure 4.12). Similar trends are observed in total abundance (pre-fishery recruitment), which declined from over 200,000 in the late 1970s and late 1980s to less than 30,000 in between 1990-2020. Survival of hatchery releases has also declined from a maximum of 7.2% to less than 1% in return year 2003 and an average of 1.0% between brood years 2003-2020 (Figure 4.13).

Observed escapement for each of the five Coho Salmon populations show similar trends as those in the aggregate total (Figure 4.12). The populations differ in abundance; however, the North Thompson population has generally been the largest, and the Upper Fraser and Lower Thompson populations are typically much smaller. It should be noted that the escapement estimates to the upper Middle Fraser have low or un-estimated precision.

Table 4.7: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Interior Fraser Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	46,451	41,458	1.2%	9.2%
2005	15,999	14,476	3.1%	6.3%
2006	8,800	7,880	2.4%	7.9%
2007	66,052	58,214	3.5%	8.1%
2008	18,015	16,306	2.6%	6.7%
2009	25,063	21,543	3.0%	10.9%
2010	43,318	38,562	4.0%	6.8%
2011	30,292	25,947	6.8%	7.4%
2012	65,014	55,562	5.4%	9.1%
2013	71,415	56,681	8.4%	12.0%
2014	26,551	17,176	26.5%	8.5%
2015	15,021	11,409	14.9%	9.0%
2016	64,867	58,898	4.8%	4.3%
2017	26,777	24,174	4.8%	4.7%
2018	38,098	32,286	7.7%	7.4%
2019	54,777	43,826	6.6%	13.3%
2020	82,191	71,141	4.5%	8.8%
2021	87,210	78,920	4.5%	4.8%
2022	80,129	70,201	5.8%	6.4%

Figure 4.19: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Interior Fraser MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Interior Fraser MU (Need esc goal for ifr 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Since catch year 2004, the pre- and post-season status of the has been Low. Since the development of reference points that include survival, the has persisted at a “low” status.

Figure 4.20: Interior Fraser post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2021. The vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.21: Interior Fraser pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.8: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Interior Fraser from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	34,508.5	46,450.6
2005	30,807.9	15,999.3
2006	18,298.1	8,799.6
2007	14,225.2	66,052.4
2008	14,031.5	18,015.3
2009	15,699.6	25,062.9
2010	22,026.1	43,317.6
2011	22,859.6	30,292.0
2012	27,971.1	65,014.4
2013	38,523.7	71,415.2
2014	54,600.7	26,551.0
2015	46,255.5	15,020.5
2016	14,272.8	64,866.9
2017	28,122.6	26,777.0
2018	32,132.3	38,098.3
2019	40,720.5	54,776.9
2020	39,424.5	82,190.8
2021	44,097.7	87,209.8
2022	84,020.3	80,129.1
2023	87,527.6	NA
2024	86,219.9	NA

Factors Affecting Management Unit Status

Survival and Productivity

Several reports have highlighted a change in Coho Salmon survival and productivity. Irvine et al. (1999a) first documented trends in the rate of population growth for the North and South Thompson populations of Coho Salmon for the brood years between 1975 and 1997. Decker et al. (2014) subsequently noted two distinct periods in the stock-recruitment relationship for (Figure 4.22) that are likely driven by a change in smolt-to-adult survival. Productivity was considerably higher for return years 1987- 1993 (brood years 1984-1990) than for return years 1994-2018 (brood years 1991-2015). This change corresponds approximately to a 1989-1990 change in marine conditions ((Beamish 1993), (Irvine and Fukuwaka 2011)). A shift is evident in annual smolt-to-adult survival estimates for -indicator stocks, with survival for the past 15+ years being much lower than before the shift in productivity (Figure 4.13). Smolt-to-adult survival averaged about 4.4% from brood years 1984-1990 (including 2 infilled years), then dropped to <1% in brood year 1992. Smolt-to-adult survival appeared to increase after brood year 1992 but then decreased to <0.1% in brood year 2003. Since the last peak in smolt-to-adult survival around brood years 1997-1999, smolt-to-adult survival has averaged 1.0%.

Figure 4.22: Productivity (natural log transformed) versus total escapement abundance of Interior Fraser River Coho Salmon. Brood years 1984-1990 are open circles, which coincide with high survival and productivity, and 1991- 2013 are filled circles, which coincide with low survival and productivity. The black lines represent the relation between productivity and total escapement; r2 = 0.93 and 0.19 for the open circles and filled circles, respectively, with p < 0.05 for each model. The two red points are influential points from brood years 2002 and 2012. The red line is the slope with the influential points included. *Original figure from Arbeider (2020), which is an updated figure from Decker et al. (2014). The data are not age stratified in this relationship.

Climate Change

Various studies have documented the role of climate change in altering the marine ecosystem and related this to shifts in marine survival for Coho and other Pacific salmon (e.g., Beamish (1993), Beamish and Thomson (1999); Beamish and King (2000); Coronado and Hilborn (1998); Irvine and Fukuwaka (2011)). Climate change is also expected to have significant impacts on freshwater habitat for Coho Salmon as well. For example, Porter and Nelitz (2009) modelled the effects of various climate change scenarios on stream temperatures and hydrology in a number of watersheds in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region of the Interior Fraser River watershed, and found that, under worst-case scenarios, increased air temperatures and precipitation were likely to result in contractions in the current range of suitable habitat for Coho Salmon during the next 80 years in most watersheds, but possible expansions in others. Other drainages in the interior Fraser River such as the Lower and South Thompson rivers, have considerably warmer climates than the Cariboo-Chilcotin, and would be expected to experience more severe impacts from warming temperatures. Morrison et al. (2002) observed that historic peak flows are occurring earlier and summer water temperatures are increasing in the Fraser River’s mainstem. They projected that by 2070-2099, there would be an overall increase in flow volume (+5%) but a decrease in peak flow (-18%) that would occur an average of 24 days earlier than the average in 2002. For the same projection period, summer water temperatures were predicted to increase an average of 1.9 °C, which is enough to increase adult mortality in freshwater and pre-spawn mortality on the spawning grounds. Morrison et al. (2002) specifically noted that salmon migrating up the Thompson River (i.e. Lower Thompson, South Thompson, and North Thompson Rivers) would encounter temperatures above their thermal tolerance in the future under the assumption that they do not have the adaptive capacity to handle consistently higher temperatures, which is likely. While Healey (2011) reviewed the potential negative effects of global warming at each stage in the life cycle of Fraser River Sockeye salmon; the majority of these effects are applicable to Interior Fraser Coho Salmon as well.

For IFR Coho Salmon, the threat of future climate change represents a severe threat because: 1) marine survival of salmon is correlated with climate-induced regime shifts and inter-annual variability in sea surface temperatures and ocean currents, 2) warmer temperatures have the potential to substantially reduce usable habitat, carrying capacity and productivity in both the freshwater and marine environments, and 3) anthropogenic-induced climate change will not be reversible in a reasonable time frame. There is continued debate as to how Pacific salmon will respond to future climate change, but for Coho Salmon at least, the weight of scientific evidence and scientific opinion suggests that the overall effect will be strongly negative (e.g., Bradford (1998); Beamish and Thomson (1999); Lackey (2001); Hartman et al. (2000); Healey (2011); Irvine and Fukuwaka (2011)).

Freshwater and Estuary Habitat and Land Use

Freshwater habitat status in this is reviewed in Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1998a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1998b), and Harding et al. (1994). A comprehensive summary of the habitat within the is presented in the IFRCT Comprehensive Report. Specific freshwater habitat concerns, by watershed, have been collated in a series of Fraser River Action Plan (FRAP) reports (e.g., Harding et al. (1994), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1998a), Fisheries and Oceans Canada (1998b); and Decker and Irvine (2014)).

Coho Salmon habitat in the Interior Fraser watershed has been impacted in many ways. Many valley bottoms were logged, and have subsequently been used for agriculture (mainly livestock, dairy, and animal feed crops) for at least the last 50 years (Burt and Wallis 1997). In some cases, riparian vegetation has been removed, livestock have destabilized stream banks, and off-channel habitats and wetlands have been destroyed or isolated by dike construction. In most non-agricultural areas the old-growth timber on the valley floors has been removed, and logging is now occurring in the headwaters of many drainages. Salvage logging in forests that have been impacted by pine beetle and forest fires has also increased the rate of logging in some areas. Forest fires are also becoming more frequent as a result of climate change, historic forestry practices, pine beetle infestation, and incidences of human initiated fires ((Mote et al. 2003), Wang et al. 2015). In addition, much of the southern and western part of the Thompson River watershed is semiarid and high rates of water withdrawal in summer for irrigation cause low flows and high water temperatures ((Rood and Hamilton 1995), Walthers and Nener 2000; (Rosenau and Angelo 2003)).

In many watersheds, the alteration of natural riparian ecosystems for agriculture, industrial forestry, by pine beetle and for other uses has largely occurred, though the impact of these changes has not necessarily stabilized as the influence of these alterations on the resiliency of habitats to threats such as PDO fluctuations or climate change is unknown. Bradford and Irvine (2000) related the rate at which the abundance of Coho Salmon returning to individual interior Fraser River spawning streams declined to the extent of human activity in the corresponding watershed during 1988-1998. They showed that rates of decline were correlated with agricultural land use, road density, and a qualitative index of stream habitat status.

The extent of use of the lower Fraser River and its estuary by Interior Fraser Coho Salmon is poorly understood. However, DNA analysis of a sample of 1800 juvenile Coho Salmon collected during the winter from side-channel and off-channel habitat in the lower Fraser River near Aggasiz in 2006-2007 indicated that 35% were of Interior Fraser origin (, Fraser River Chinook and Coho Salmon Stock Assessment Division, unpublished data). An acoustic tagging experiment suggests that Interior Fraser Coho Salmon experience relatively high mortality during their migration through the Lower Fraser River and estuary (Chittenden et al. 2010). Habitats within the lower Fraser River have been greatly impacted. Most of the streams in the lower Fraser River valley are classified as threatened or endangered due to draining of wetlands for agriculture and residential development, dyke construction for flood control, riparian zone degradation, and pollution ((Fraser River Action Plan (FRAP) 1998), (Langer et al. 2000), (Brown 2002), (Rosenau and Angelo 2003)). As of 1988, an estimated 70% of wetland habitats had been isolated from the lower Fraser River floodplain by dyke systems (Birtwell et al. 1988).

4.2.2 Lower Fraser

This description was prepared by Canadian members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.2.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Fraser River is the largest watershed in the province and supports a wide diversity and great abundance of salmon stocks. The Lower Fraser (LWFR) Coho Salmon includes conservation units (CUs) below Hells Gate, at the Fraser River upstream limit of the . During the period of glaciation, as the ice retreated, the Fraser canyon at Hells Gate became blocked with ice, restricting the dispersal of many fish species. Consequently, Coho Salmon found in the lower Fraser River watershed, are known to have been colonized along the coast via the sea (Decker and Irvine 2014). Furthermore, in 1945 a landslide at Hells Gate (induced by railway construction in 1913) created a barrier to upstream salmon migration. Despite the construction of a fishway, Hells Gate remains a velocity barrier for many salmon species. For these reasons, Coho Salmon migrating upstream of Hells Gate are biologically and evolutionarily distinct from Coho Salmon and are referred to as Coho Salmon. Coho Salmon originate from areas considerably farther upstream of Hells Gate, many from the Thompson River system. In turn, they show morphological differences and swimming performance that are likely associated with their longer migrations (Taylor and McPhail 1985). The Coho Salmon includes North Thompson, South Thompson, Lower Thompson, Fraser Canyon, and Middle Fraser CUs. Coho Salmon are more typical of other nearby coastal populations in terms of morphology, genetic marker similarity, and life history (Arbeider 2020). Within the , there are four CUs as designated under the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP); Lillooet, Lower Fraser A (further upstream, incorporates Chilliwack watershed), Lower Fraser B (nearer the mouth of the Fraser River), and Boundary Bay. The Boundary Bay is not directly connected to the Fraser River watershed and is more genetically related to the Puget Sound populations (in the U.S.).

Figure 4.23: Lower Fraser Coho Salmon Management Unit.

The is comprised of the Fraser River watershed including the Lillooet River and the delta downstream of Hell’s Gate encompassing Boundary Bay. This area roughly matches both marine and freshwater Canadian Fisheries Management Area 29; it does not include sub-areas 29-1 and 29-5, which borders the shoreline of the Sunshine Coast and the Gulf Islands. This area is also described as Region 2 in the British Columbia Regional Freshwater Fishing Guide. Not all rivers and streams found in these areas are contained within the ; only systems derived from the Fraser River or Boundary Bay are included. The includes a significant marine portion of the southern Strait of Georgia extending north to Reception Point on the Sunshine Coast, east to the Southern Gulf Islands, and south to the international border.

The Fraser is the longest river in British Columbia, originating at Fraser Pass and flowing for 1,375 into the Strait of Georgia at the city of Vancouver. The Fraser River drains a 220,000 km² area with an annual discharge at its mouth of 112 km³ (3550 m³/s). The ’s upper boundary begins at Hell’s Gate, where the entire volume of the river is forced through a narrow canyon only 35 meters wide. Downstream at Yale, the canyon opens, emerging almost at sea level with the river widening until Hope, where the river then turns west and southwest into the lowland Fraser Valley. The Fraser turns southwest again just east of New Westminster, where it splits into the North Arm and the South Arm. It then forms a delta, with several industrialized and heavily populated islands, where it empties into the Strait of Georgia between the mainland and Vancouver Island. At the mouth of the Fraser, mixing of the fresh river water and denser saline ocean water produces stratified flow, developing a well-defined “salt-wedge” during flood tides. The salt wedge is generally restricted to the reach downstream of Deas Island for most times of the year (Ward, 1976). The position of the salt wedge shifts further downstream with increasing freshwater discharges.

Four main tributaries enter the Fraser River between Hope and Mission. In order of basin size, these are Harrison River (7,870 km²), Chilliwack River (1,230 km²), Chehalis River (383 km²), and Silverhope Creek (350 km²). The Lillooet River originates from the Lillooet Glacier meltwater that flows south past the town of Pemberton into the top of Harrison Lake. Owing to this, the Harrison peak flows tend to be snowmelt generated and typically occur a few days after the Fraser peak flow. The Chilliwack River and Silverhope Creek maximum annual discharges may occur in either summer or fall, whereas Chehalis River peak flood events occur in the fall and winter. Four additional large tributary systems are located downstream of Mission: Stave River, Pitt River, Alouette River, and Coquitlam River. The Stave River and Pitt River are the larger basins with drainage areas of 1,140 km² and 795 km². The Coquitlam and Alouette Rivers each drain areas of 237 km² and 234 km². The Stave, Alouette, and Coquitlam Rivers are regulated by BC Hydro while the Pitt River is unregulated.

While the vast majority of the river’s drainage basin lies within British Columbia, a small portion in the drainage basin lies across the international border in Washington, namely the upper reaches of the Chilliwack and Sumas Rivers and parts of the Boundary Bay . The Boundary Bay watershed is not a tributary of the Fraser River and is located south of the Fraser River Delta, approximately 19 km outside the City of Vancouver. The rectangular-shaped basin is 15 km long and 4 km wide and straddles the US Canadian border facing onto the southern portion of the Strait of Georgia. Boundary Bay is divided into two extensions: Mud Bay to the northeast, and Semiahmoo Bay to the southeast that crosses the border into the United States. The five main river inflows include; Nicomekl (~34 km long), Serpentine (~35 km long), Little Campbell River (~30 km long), California Creek, and Dakota Creek (Swain and Holms 1988).

Downstream from Hope, the river and adjoining floodplains widen considerably in the area considered the head of the Fraser Delta. The river passes through fertile agricultural lands and populous city centers on its way through the valley to the mouth at Georgia Strait. The Fraser Valley has a variety of land uses, ranging from the urban and industrial centers through golf courses and parks to dairy farms and berry fields.

Increasing rapid urban and suburban growth has taken place in the Vancouver area and communities in the Fraser Valley. The main population center in this region is Metro Vancouver. Other centers include Chilliwack, Abbotsford, Surrey, and Mission. Surrey has become the lower Mainland’s second-largest city with significant population growth between 2010-2020. It is anticipated that Surrey’s population will grow by more than 50% by 2051 (City of Surrey 2021). With anticipated continued population growth, the cumulative impact of human activities will put increasing pressure on watershed catchments, sediment stability, and water resources (Arbeider 2020).

Agriculture in the Fraser Valley is well established. Although it makes up only a small percentage of the province’s total land area the Fraser Valley brings in over half of British Columbia’s annual agricultural revenue. Typically, farmland activities are focussed along riparian areas causing impacts to stream habitat. Sumas Lake is one specific example of Coho Salmon habitat converted for agricultural purposes. In the 1920’s Sumas Lake was drained and dyked to allow for increased land availability and flood control. The shallow lake was approximately 40 km2 in size. Roughly 3,600 ha of open water and 8,000 ha of marsh habitat and sloughs were lost during the draining of the lake (Brown 2002). Following the drainage of Sumas Lake, the intensity of agricultural operations increased considerably, specifically for livestock operations (BC Min. of Water, Land, and Air Protection. 2004). More generally, most of the streams in the lower Fraser have been altered due to flood control and agricultural practices (Finn et al. 2021).

Additionally, two pipelines run through the lower Fraser Valley: the Trans Mountain pipeline that transports crude and refined oil products, and the Westcoast Transmission System Pipeline that transports natural gas.

4.2.2.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the ABM regime, (defined as total fishing mortality divided by total fishing mortality plus escapement) for each Party’s fisheries are to be constrained for each , depending on status determinations provided by each Party. Under the ABM plan, the Parties are required to establish escapement goals or that achieve Maximum Sustainable Harvest, for each and status category (low, moderate, and abundant). Until such time as the Parties provide the targets, the plan identified ceilings for the following status categories (for details see http://www.psc.org/publications_psctreaty.htm). The low category is defined as marine survival less than 3%, moderate 3-6% and abundant as survival greater than 6% Table 4.9.

Table 4.9: Current Management Reference Point (circa 2018)

Status	Survival and Abundance Targets	Total Exploitation Rate
Low	<3 % survival or abundance target	Up to 20%
Moderate	3-6 % survival and moderate abundance target	21% – 40%
Abundant	>6 % survival and abundant abundance target	41% – 65%

Currently, there are no caps in place for the . Fisheries management measures implemented to protect Coho Salmon are assumed to protect the Coho Salmon due to overlap in run timing. In addition, similar marine survival rate patterns between the two provide the support that status-based caps for Coho Salmon will achieve conservation requirements for Coho Salmon in most years (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018). The Coho Salmon is classified as ‘low’ status under the and is currently managed internationally to an overall of 20% (10% for Canada and 10% for the U.S.). Canadian domestic management has further reduced the objective for Coho Salmon to between 3 and 5% annually. The reduction is accomplished through significant restrictions on the retention of naturally produced (adipose fin present) Coho Salmon in fisheries where Coho Salmon are present, as well as broad-scale closures to fisheries targeting Coho Salmon. A moving window closure is implemented annually in the mainstem of the Fraser from September through October to avoid bycatch of Coho Salmon (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2020). These restrictions have been in place since 1998, though the 3-5% management objective has been in place since 2015. In years prior to 2015, the management objective was occasionally relaxed to facilitate Sockeye targeted fisheries that catch Coho Salmon as bycatch (such as in 2014). Coho Salmon are known to have a slightly later run timing than Coho Salmon, therefore late-season fisheries occurring after the window closure may still impact the . In the absence of caps for this , attention should be taken to avoid over-harvesting Coho Salmon in late fall fisheries (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018).

At this time, there are no Reference Points for the LWFR . Recent changes to the Canadian Fisheries Act (Bill C-38) have mandated the establishment of limit reference points for all major Canadian fish stocks. It is anticipated to take several years for all fish stocks to be evaluated. The LWFR has not been prioritized for the development reference points as of this writing.

Under the Wild Salmon Policy (WSP), the Department is mandated to manage wild Pacific salmon to allow for the restoration and maintenance of healthy and diverse salmon populations. Under the WSP, all decisions and activities are guided by three objectives; safeguard genetic diversity, maintain habitat and ecosystem integrity, and manage fisheries for sustainable benefits. Wild LWFR Coho Salmon will be and are currently managed in a way and at a rate that does not lead to a long-term decline in abundance. Canada’s adoption of the WSP allows for sustainable harvest to maintain the ability for future generations to sustain their needs (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2005).

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Each year are applied to a portion of the out-migrating juvenile Coho Salmon, with tag recovery occurring when returning adult fish are caught. Annual analysis uses recoveries from indicator stocks to represent the impacts to the . Results are then used to define fishery management objectives such as . Very few indicator programs are implemented to assess salmon escapement due to high project costs (Grant et al. 2007). Up until 2005, the Salmon River located in Fort Langley BC and the Upper Pitt River located upstream of Pitt Lake in the lower mainland were two wild indicator stocks for the . However, escapement trends in other systems revealed poor correlation between the two indicator stocks and other assessed streams. The Salmon River and the Upper Pitt River are no longer wild indicator stocks (Grant 2007). It is unclear why differing trends were observed between the Salmon and Pitt indicator stocks and other streams. Inch Creek is currently the sole hatchery indicator stock for the and is located approximately 10 kilometers east of Mission BC. Between 2000-2017 brood years, Inch Creek averaged 105,500 released Coho Salmon per year (Table 4.10). 100% of the fish released with from this hatchery are adipose fin-clipped. Historically (1983-2000), the hatchery produced an average of 45,000 coded-wired-tagged fish. In 2014, the target was increased to 140,000-150,000 juveniles.

Table 4.10: Total hatchery releases and coded wire tag (CWT) releases at Inch Creek hatchery from brood years 1986-2016 with percent of releases with a CWT.

Brood Year	All Releases	Coded Wire Tag Releases	Percentage of Releases with CWT
1986	194814	19504	0.100
1987	82129	27458	0.334
1988	190725	38019	0.199
1989	153120	29367	0.192
1990	183104	31629	0.173
1991	229647	21172	0.092
1992	242949	20303	0.084
1993	257049	21540	0.084
1994	231092	21174	0.092
1995	477089	77332	0.162
1996	209702	85487	0.408
1997	363436	80506	0.222
1998	495959	80299	0.162
1999	189092	80001	0.423
2000	454642	80155	0.176
2001	206926	79328	0.383
2002	144600	79304	0.548
2003	144223	79972	0.555
2004	140399	100058	0.713
2005	233639	99355	0.425
2006	148902	100326	0.674
2007	139062	100619	0.724
2008	162607	98149	0.604
2009	191577	95310	0.498
2010	156552	98651	0.630
2011	156141	100028	0.641
2012	162369	100141	0.617
2013	161348	149943	0.929
2014	147951	140470	0.949
2015	149702	147806	0.987
2016	151923	145310	0.956

Figure 4.24: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Lower Fraser MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.25: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery Coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Lower Fraser MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Due to data deficiencies, pre-season system-wide forecasts are not calculated for the Coho Salmon . However, under Annex four of the {Commission (2019)], Canada and the United States have agreed to estimate fishery impacts on the Southern Coho Salmon using the Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM). FRAM is a discrete, time-step, age-structured, deterministic, model that is used to predict escapement and ER. FRAM is founded in a base period of stock-specific ocean distributions from 1986 to 1992 constructed from recoveries from 198 fisheries. The model estimates escapement and ER for the upcoming year using past Coho Salmon encounters scaled to represent present stock abundances and catch (documentation on FRAM can be found here: https://framverse.github.io/fram_doc/). For the LWFR , the Inch Creek indicator stock survival and run size is forecasted and incorporated into the FRAM model for pre-and post-season analysis on stock status. Survival is calculated by: ToDo: need to fix this Survival=(100 (C+E+M))/S Where percent survival equals catch (C) plus escapement (E) plus natural mortality (M) (which is assumed as negligible) divided by the abundance of brood year smolts (S) multiplied by 100%. The calculated survival rates are used as indicators of smolt releases and the resulting return of three-year-old adults including fisheries removals.

It has been shown that climatic indicators are correlated to biological processes including marine survival of salmon (DFO unpublished 2020b). Models use data on climatic trends to better inform future marine survival run size. Climate indicators such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO), El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and Sea Surface Temperature (SST) are included (DFO unpublished 2020b). Climatic models utilize a regression of the logit transformed marine survivals (Y) against the logit transformed climate index (X₁) and the “odd year” status (X₂). Each model follows this general equation: Y_t+1=X_t+1 b₁+X_2t+1 b₂+a

Where the regression coefficients (b) are multiplied by the climate index value for the forecast year X_t+1 and “odd year” status for the forecast year X_2t+1 summed together with the regression intercept (a). The best-preforming model for each is determined through retrospective analysis and a forecast is produced yearly.

Marine Survival

Marine survival rates of Coho Salmon from the Inch Creek Hatchery indicator stocks are displayed in (Figure 4.26). Marked Coho Salmon (adipose-fin-clipped) have been released with from Inch Creek since 1983 to support fisheries monitoring and creation of a survival index. Although all releases can be used for calculating exploitation, some include experimental release sizes or timings that may affect survival. It has been proven that there is strong size-selective mortality in the early marine period ((Beamish and Mahnken 2001); (Beamish et al. 2004), etc); therefore, releases need to be fairly uniform to support a long-term survival index. The survival of the Inch Creek index is thus calculated from specific tag codes releases that do not fall out of a normal range of size at release. The index calculation is simply the sum of adult (age 3+) escapement and catch of all tag codes from a given brood year divided by the total release of that given brood year.

For the hatchery indicator stocks, the marine survival rate showed a directed downward trend during the 1990s. Historic data from 1985-1999 shows, the marine survival rates of Salmon, Inch, and Chilliwack averaged 9.5%, 7.0%, and 7.4%, respectively. More recently, the Inch Creek Hatchery has had an average survival rate of 2.7% between brood years 2000-2017 (Figure 4.26). Fish returning in 2020 from the 2017 brood year saw an unexpectedly large increase in percent survival. Analysis of the increase in survival is currently underway.

Figure 4.26: Inch Creek Coho Salmon indicator stock smolt to adult survival estimates in the LWFR Coho Salmon Management Unit, 1986 to 2017 brood years.

Run Timing

Coho Salmon are known to enter the lower Fraser River from late August to December. Coho Salmon have evolved a slightly later run timing compared to the earlier Coho Salmon (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019). Peak timing has not been calculated for the entire . As part of the larger LWFR Coho Salmon Escapement Assessment project (described in section 4), in-river test fishery data from 1985-2018 has been analyzed to create a catch-by-date timeline to forecast peak run timing (Arbeider et al. 2020). The analysis indicated the majority of peak run timing at the test fisheries in these years occurred between October 1 to October 15.

Lower Fraser - Grant et al. (2007) is the most recent reference for defining run timing for Coho Salmon in the lower Fraser. The document includes peak timing estimates for 21 streams for the years 1999-2005. There are no updated run timing estimates for the CUs.

Lillooet - The exact run timing of Lillooet Coho Salmon has yet to be defined. However, efforts have been made to remedy this through the deployment of an ARIS to estimate wild escapement. The ARIS was installed to estimate escapement during six weeks between October 18 to November 29, 2019. Daily counts peaked early and generally decreased for the remainder of the sampling period. Daily counts indicated the project did not capture the early migration and true peak, assuming the run-timing curve approximates a normal distribution (Johnson et al. 2020). Efforts to better define Lillooet run timing are underway through the Coho Escapement Assessment project (Arbeider et al. 2020).

Boundary Bay - Historical assessments of the Boundary Bay were conducted in 1988 by Swain and Holms on three systems: Little Campbell River, Serpentine River, and the Nicomekl River. The assessments indicated Little Campbell River and Serpentine Coho Salmon arrive to the systems in October, with peak counts occurring in mid-November and the last spawner observed in late November to late December. Nicomekl Coho Salmon arrive to the system in September, peaking in late November, with the last spawner observed at the end of December (Swain and Holms 1988). Unfortunately, updated run timings have not been conducted as of 2021.

Smolt Production

Without direct estimates of juvenile productivity, appropriate escapement goals are difficult to define for Coho Salmon. Habitat capacity models provide alternative methods to determining smolt production capacities and potential escapement goals for a specific . Nobel et al. 2015 constructed a model that predicts the average smolts per spawner based on habitat availability. Wild smolt production from lower Fraser monitored streams is used to develop a relationship between smolt production and stream length. This relationship is then applied to estimate stream-specific smolt yields and required spawners for identified Coho-producing steams. In the entire , 136 streams are documented as supporting wild Coho Salmon production (Noble et al. 2015). Within the , the average estimated smolt production and the abundance of spawners required to produce the average smolts are 3,003,538 and 92,037, respectively. Overall, the lower Fraser has a calculated available habitat of 2,572 km. Data deficiencies continue to prevent robust escapement goals and management objectives (such as S_msy or S_gen benchmarks) to be calculated for the LFR . However, results suggest appropriate escapement goals should be in the range of 39,000 spawners for the Lower Fraser CUs, 16,000 for Boundary Bay, and 24,000 for Lillooet (Noble et al. 2015).

Escapement Monitoring

Grant et al. (2007) is the most recent reference for escapement monitoring for Coho Salmon in the lower Fraser. Inconsistencies in budgets and Departmental staffing have limited data analysis on this . Estimates of Coho Salmon escapement have not been completed for the system and remains a significant data gap. Methods to monitor escapement vary depending on and by stream.

Lower Fraser

In the past, two mark re-capture programs were implemented in the lower Fraser. The Upper Pitt River program ran from 1993 to 2001 with a yearly escapement average estimate of just over 10,000 fish for the nine years. The Salmon River program ran from 1997 to 2008. Currently, there are no mark re-capture projects aimed at assessing Coho Salmon in the lower Fraser. Alternatively, stream walks have been conducted throughout the Lower Mainland in the following streams:

• Barnes
• Blaney
• Chilqua
• Coghlan
• Hicks
• Hopedale
• Kanaka
• Kawakawa
• McIntyre
• North Alouette
• Nathan
• Norrish
• Post
• Salmon
• Siddle
• Silverdale
• Squawkum
• Street
• Whonnock
• Widgeon
• Worth

The objective of the stream walks is to estimate daily abundance throughout the entire run. Historical information on stream run timing is used to determine survey start and end dates. The two technicians use counters to tally live and dead counts of observed Coho Salmon in each stream. Carcasses may be sampled for length, sex, percent spawn, adipose presence/absence, detection, and DNA analysis (Grant et al. 2007). The number of streams surveyed changes yearly based on the availability of staff and funding. Unfortunately, data on recent escapement trends is currently unavailable and remains a major data gap.

Lillooet

Stream surveys are annually completed in the Lillooet on major tributaries. Due to inconsistencies in funds, there is currently no way of estimating system-wide Lillooet escapements (Johnson et al. 2019). Recently, efforts have been made to remedy this through the deployment of a sonar system in the Lillooet River run by the Lil’wat Nation and LGL Ltd. The project was prepared for the and was undertaken to estimate wild Coho Salmon escapement through the use of an ARIS system (Johnson et al. 2019). Over the six weeks of sampling from 18 October to 30 November 2019, 2,124 Coho Salmon were enumerated. From the results of the ARIS sampling, it was determined the project did not fully capture the peak of the run. As part of the larger Coho Escapement Assessment project (described in section 4), the Lillooet sonar program will be expanded to cover the entire length of the run to allow total escapement to be estimated (Arbeider et al. 2020).

Boundary Bay

The Boundary Bay does not currently have stock assessment programs dedicated to assessing escapement.

Fishery Monitoring

Under the , is required to annually monitor fishery impacts to all Coho to determine retained catch, recovery rates, and incidental mortalities. Defining -specific fishery impacts allows Resource Managers to accurately evaluate relative to prescribed limits.

Due to management measures implemented to protect Coho Salmon, retention of all Coho Salmon is limited in all fisheries. Generally, Coho Salmon impacts are monitored through programs carried out in non-target fisheries where bycatch is possible. However, some fisheries have been permitted to retain hatchery marked Coho Salmon. Nations with access to terminal hatchery systems may have the opportunity to retain adipose fin-clipped (AFC) Coho Salmon, such as fish bound for the Inch Creek, the Chilliwack, or the Chehalis hatcheries. Additionally, mark-selective recreational fisheries can be authorized in some areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2020). All fisheries mentioned above are monitored according to the Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in Pacific Fisheries (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2012).

Catch monitoring programs vary depending on the characteristics of the fishery and available resources. Data is collected through either fisher-dependent or fisher-independent methods. Fisher-dependant estimates are collected through interviews either orally or in writing, while fisher-independent estimates are based on catch observed or verified by fishery monitors. Most fisheries are monitored using a combination of fisher-dependant and fisher-independent methods.

Food, Social, and Ceremonial (FSC) and Economic Opportunity (EO) Fisheries Nations fishing for needs are subject to different types of monitoring depending on the type of net and the location of the fishing area. Generally, all catch rate data is based on interviews with fishers. In some cases, the retained catch is counted by fishery monitors, either onboard or observed on the water. Nations fishing in an opening are required to land their catch at landing sites where a stationed monitor counts catch and collects release and effort data. Frequent vessel patrols and overflights are conducted in some areas to calculate instantaneous effort counts in both and gillnet fisheries. Patrols in selective fisheries such as beach seines and shallow seines are used to ensure bycatch is recorded correctly.

Commercial Fisheries

Commercial catch is reported via phone-in log reports. Data is also verified through daily patrols where on the water monitors validate kept and release numbers. Commercial vessels are mandated to have an onboard revival tank to lower impacts to bycatch species such as wild Coho Salmon. Some commercial fleets are required to have onboard at-sea-observers to assess Coho Salmon encounter rates and fish conditions. Vessel patrols and overflights estimate boat counts to calculate instantaneous effort.

Recreational Fisheries

Creel surveys are the primary tool used to estimate catch in recreational fisheries in both the marine and freshwater areas. Creel surveyors interview fishers to collect catch and effort data to define catch rates. In 2014 developed a survey used to reach areas in the marine waters where creel monitors are not available, called the internet-based recreational fishery (iREC). The iREC platform uses a monthly online survey to collect detailed recreational fishing catch and effort information from randomly selected tidal waters license holders. In some areas, vessel patrols and overflights are deployed to estimate boat counts to calculate instantaneous effort.

Enhancement

–> These paragraphs don’t match up entirely (update paragraph #2 and delete first one): The following hatcheries produce salmon to support and objectives and are located within the lower Fraser River watershed: 1) Chehalis River Hatchery, located on a tributary of the Harrison River, which is a major tributary of the lower Fraser River; 2) Chilliwack River Hatchery, located on a major tributary of the lower Fraser River; and 3) Inch Creek Hatchery, located on a tributary of a large slough connected to the lower Fraser River. The Inch Creek Hatchery rears Coho Salmon for the indicator stock for the Coho Salmon . Numerous community hatcheries support Indigenous and community activities through the Community Economic Development and Public Involvement Program.

The following federal hatcheries are located within the lower Fraser watershed: 1) Chehalis Hatchery located on the Chehalis River, 2.8 km upstream of the confluence of Harrison River; 2) Chilliwack Hatchery located on the Chilliwack River approximately 40 km upstream of the confluence of the Fraser River; and 3) Inch Creek Hatchery located on Norrish Creek 1.6 km upstream of the confluence of Nicomen/Dewdney Slough. Several additional community hatcheries and school programs operate within the and release Coho Salmon. Coho Salmon releases from the entire during the 1980 to 2016 brood years are displayed in (Figure 4.27). The average number of smolts released during this period was approximately 2.1 million per year. The average number of fry released was approximately 183,000 per year. The majority of the smolts are released from the Inch, Chilliwack, and Chehalis federal hatcheries (averaging approximately 180,000, 1.2 million, and 774,000, respectively). The Alouette and Kanaka hatcheries also release a significant number of Coho Salmon (approximately 42,000 each).

Figure 4.27: Total hatchery releases for the entire from brood years 1980-2016 by release stage (fry and smolts) with percent mass marked.

Several smaller-scale community hatcheries and school projects release fry at various sites in the lower Fraser. These releases account for a small percentage of the total number of Coho Salmon in the . Most school community groups release Coho Salmon as fry rather than smolts. All projects are administered through the Salmonid Enhancement Program (SEP) within the Department. SEP also oversees numerous habitat restoration projects, such as the construction of artificial side-channel habitats for rearing and spawning.

Mass marking of Canadian hatchery Coho Salmon began in 1995. In the , Coho Salmon have been mass-marked at the Chehalis, Chilliwack, and Inch hatcheries. For the 1995 brood year, the mark was a left ventral clip. All brood year releases after 1995 have been adipose clipped. As of the 2000 brood year, 98.5% of hatchery fish from the three hatcheries mentioned above are adipose fin clipped. All Coho Salmon released with a are also fin clipped. Since 1998, there has been mandatory non-retention of wild Coho Salmon for all areas of British Columbia except selected terminal areas on hatchery stocks.

Figure 4.28: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Lower Fraser , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.2.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.29: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Lower Fraser MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. The marine distribution data of marked Coho Salmon populations in Canada was obtained through the Mark Recovery Program (MRP), operated by . Recoveries of coded-wire tagged and adipose-fin-clipped (AFC) marked Coho Salmon from various fisheries provide information on fishery and apparent marine distributions.

Table 4.11: Lower Fraser MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Newport Sport	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	-	0.02%
Newport Troll	0.03%	0.05%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.09%
Coos Bay Sport	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
Coos Bay Troll	0.02%	0.02%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.04%
Tillamook Sport	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Tillamook Troll	0.00%	0.05%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.06%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.02%	0.02%	-	0.04%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	-	0.02%	0.03%	0.01%	-	0.06%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%	-	-	0.09%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.03%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.02%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.04%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.02%	0.11%	0.07%	0.03%	-	0.23%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.02%	0.00%	0.04%	0.07%	-	0.13%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.02%	0.08%	0.14%	0.12%	-	0.37%
WA Area 3 Sport	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	0.03%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.14%	0.36%	0.18%	-	0.68%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.29%	0.03%	0.01%	0.36%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.43%	0.50%	0.13%	0.05%	1.14%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.07%	0.02%	0.10%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.03%	0.01%	0.06%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.07%	0.21%	0.37%	1.35%	2.00%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.09%	0.77%	1.96%	2.82%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	-	0.10%	1.33%	3.83%	5.26%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.07%	0.35%	0.99%	1.53%	0.53%	3.48%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.01%	0.06%	0.03%	0.23%	0.19%	0.53%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.02%	0.06%	0.08%	0.08%	0.36%	0.60%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.14%	0.17%	0.31%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.04%	0.20%	0.22%	0.46%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.06%	0.09%	0.15%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.03%	0.05%	0.09%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%
Lower Fraser R Term Catch	-	-	-	-	7.22%	7.22%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.03%	0.07%	0.31%	0.28%	0.15%	0.84%
Johnstone Strait Troll	0.28%	1.47%	0.46%	0.52%	-	2.73%
BC Northern Troll	0.00%	0.11%	0.07%	0.03%	-	0.21%
BC North Central Troll	0.42%	0.23%	0.24%	0.10%	-	0.98%
BC South Central Troll	0.30%	1.76%	0.46%	0.23%	-	2.75%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.33%	5.47%	3.06%	2.39%	-	11.25%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.72%	12.94%	10.80%	4.33%	-	28.80%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.63%	6.42%	2.30%	2.14%	0.55%	12.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Net	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%
BC Central Net	-	0.09%	0.05%	-	-	0.14%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.01%	-	-	0.26%	0.10%	0.37%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.03%	1.13%	0.85%	1.11%	3.11%
Georgia Straits Net	-	-	0.18%	0.04%	0.21%	0.44%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.06%	0.60%	4.37%	5.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	-	0.22%	4.02%	2.92%	0.76%	7.91%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.02%	0.12%	0.08%	-	-	0.22%
BC Central Sport	-	0.06%	-	0.07%	-	0.13%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.19%	0.76%	0.33%	1.40%	2.28%	4.97%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.14%	0.08%	0.04%	0.03%	-	0.30%
North Georgia Straits Sport	7.78%	5.66%	5.40%	2.90%	0.48%	22.21%
South Georgia Straits Sport	2.89%	0.61%	0.32%	0.42%	0.49%	4.73%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
SEAK Southeast Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.02%
SEAK Northeast Troll	-	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.01%

El Nino events of the early 1990s initiated years of unfavourable marine conditions for Coho Salmon. Fish originating from the may spend their second ocean year either inside the Strait of Georgia or outside. The proximate cause of their varying location has not been explained, although their distribution is correlated with ocean conditions such as salinity. Beginning in 1994, Coho Salmon largely spent their second year outside the Strait of Georgia. This ‘choice’ may have indicated unfavourable conditions within the Strait at that time. Over the long term, urbanization and the destruction of habitat associated with that process also significantly impacted stocks within the . Notwithstanding the loss of habitat, the drastic reductions in escapement have most likely resulted in the underseeding of freshwater habitat in recent years, therefore, further limiting recruitment. High fishery relative to the steadily declining numbers surviving at sea and habitat degradation were the primary factors contributing to the reduction of spawning escapements. Therefore since 1997, Coho Salmon fisheries have been severely restricted in order to conserve Coho Salmon. These restrictions have resulted in stabilization and improvement of escapement levels, although overall stock abundance remained low. No official stock status has been defined for the , as no reference points have been established.

Catches of Fraser Coho Salmon have been extremely low due to long-term restrictions of fisheries implemented to conserve stocks of serious conservation concern, i.e., Coho Salmon. Previous to the restrictions, the primary fisheries harvesting Coho Salmon were the West Coast Vancouver Island (WCVI) troll and Georgia Strait sport fisheries. The Georgia Strait sport fishery catch declined in 1991 and then again after 1993. This decline resulted from decreased effort in response to a lower abundance of wild fish due to poor marine survival rates. WCVI troll catch declined in 1991 and 1992 but remained high until 1996, just prior to the restriction of Coho Salmon retention in this fishery. In 1998 and 1999, the retention of unmarked Coho Salmon was prohibited in Canadian waters. Only a few local mark-only fisheries were authorized. The restrictions significantly lowered catch levels and recoveries were primarily from Washington and Alaska fisheries.

Marine of Coho Salmon from Inch Creek and Salmon River Coho from 1985 to 1996 averaged approximately 74%. After fisheries restrictions were implemented in 1997, rates drastically declined for both hatchery and wild indicator stocks and remained below 13%. Estimated for the Salmon river stock began decreasing in 1995, resulting from reduced effort associated with a lower abundance of wild fish. There was a further decline in 1998 and 1999 when further harvesting restrictions were implemented.

More recently, an emerging technology analyzing genetic stock identification (GSI) in the form of single nucleotide polymorphisms loci (SNPs) combined with PBT (percentage-based tagging) has provided accurate estimates of stock composition of Coho Salmon in mixed-stock fisheries. Catch samples are compared to a baseline composed of 57,982 individuals of Coho Salmon ranging from Russia, the United States, and Canada (Beacham et al. 2020). From the 2020 research, it is demonstrated that the individuals from the CUs were caught in six of the eight mixed-stock fisheries analyzed throughout BC. Specifically, the Nicomen Slough sport fishery was composed almost entirely of Coho Salmon with the exception of one individual from WCVI, indicating incidence of stays. The CUs were not detected in the Stikine commercial and test fishery and the Barkley Sound sport samples (Beacham et al. 2020). In all other fisheries, species composition indicated low levels of Coho Salmon catch. Additional information from the collected confirmed the ability of the baseline to provide reliable estimates of composition in the mixed stock fisheries.

Figure 4.30: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Lower Fraser by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Total , Escapement, and abundance for the has been modeled based on the survival scalar in Backwards FRAM for the return years 2004-2022 (Table 4.12). abundance and escapement are modeled values that are not direct estimates as abundance data for the Coho Salmon is limited. Overall, the estimated abundance has averaged 25,800 from 2010-2019 return years. In the more recent years, there has been an increase in abundance, particularly from 2016-2019. During this period, run size averaged 34,245, which is almost 10,000 more fish than the long-term average. Prior to 2016, abundance was steadily declining. In 2014, Coho Salmon increased substantially due to high bycatch in Sockeye-directed fisheries. In 2015 a similar situation occurred, however, in Pink fisheries. The lower abundance estimate produced in 2017 could be related to the reduced escapement for the 2014 and 2015 brood years due to the reasons outlined above. Additional environmental factors other than fisheries affect Coho Salmon abundance during this time. Specifically, a large “Blob” of warm waters began to form during the winter of 2013-2014, peaking in 2015. The Blob created an unprecedented shift in the distribution of marine animals that impacted predation and competition ultimately, producing areas of low productivity affecting several fisheries (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2019). Both the Blob and increased Coho Salmon impacts in Sockeye and Pink fisheries could have led to the decrease in Coho Salmon abundance for the 2014 – 2017 return years. Although good-quality escapement data is limited for the , escapement to streams surveyed by foot or through swims have generally been low in recent years.

ToDo: ADD TABLE sheet “LWFR_ER” . Post-season summary of total , abundance, and escapement estimates for return years 1986-2019. Data represents cohort abundances of ocean age 3 Coho Salmon. Values are modelled FRAM outputs and not direct estimates. Escapement values are of terminal run size occurring after lower Fraser in river fisheries. for catch years 1986 to 1997 were estimated using analysis with the Mixed-Stock Model cohort reconstruction. for catch years 2004 to 2019 were estimated using the post-season FRAM assessment technique. Cohort reconstructions have not been completed for the Canadian between 1998 and 2003.

Table 4.12: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Lower Fraser Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	67,385	56,822	1.5%	14.1%
2005	16,843	15,244	4.7%	4.8%
2006	17,386	15,773	3.2%	6.1%
2007	74,841	66,052	5.1%	6.6%
2008	3,471	3,160	4.2%	4.6%
2009	21,561	18,772	3.4%	9.4%
2010	26,647	24,411	2.8%	5.5%
2011	16,809	12,840	12.3%	11.3%
2012	16,819	13,806	8.3%	9.6%
2013	16,872	12,208	16.0%	11.6%
2014	4,107	1,773	35.8%	21.0%
2015	16,863	9,778	27.4%	14.6%
2016	48,764	42,723	7.3%	5.0%
2017	16,802	14,715	7.3%	5.1%
2018	48,897	43,025	6.4%	5.6%
2019	42,572	36,605	5.9%	8.0%
2020	85,395	77,156	4.1%	5.5%
2021	47,539	43,860	5.0%	2.7%
2022	78,093	70,053	4.6%	5.7%

Figure 4.31: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Lower Fraser MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Lower Fraser MU (Need esc goal for lwfr 30,000 individuals).

Escapement estimates for the Inch Creek indicator stock are calculated through expansion of recoveries and are detailed in (Figure 4.32). Over the entire time series, there has been an overall increase in the escapement, with the last four years being the highest. However, there was a moderate drop during the 2010-2012 time period. It is unclear the reason for the reduction. Many different factors could have contributed to the decline.

Figure 4.32: Inch Creek escapement years 1986-2017 brood year. Escapement estimates only include Coho Salmon returning to the Inch Creek Hatchery.

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.33: Lower Fraser post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2021. The vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Table 4.13: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Lower Fraser from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	5,618.6	67,385.3
2005	13,108.0	16,843.4
2006	5,615.4	17,385.7
2007	5,614.7	74,840.8
2008	14,518.3	3,470.8
2009	1,166.9	21,561.0
2010	10,237.6	26,647.4
2011	16,810.9	16,808.5
2012	16,806.3	16,819.2
2013	16,815.6	16,872.1
2014	16,839.4	4,107.4
2015	16,838.6	16,862.5
2016	3,907.1	48,763.6
2017	16,810.5	16,801.8
2018	19,535.8	48,897.1
2019	25,696.1	42,571.8
2020	21,642.8	85,395.2
2021	24,884.1	47,539.1
2022	25,428.3	78,092.7
2023	61,555.4	NA
2024	66,004.2	NA

Factors Affecting Management Unit Status

While Coho Salmon behave differently and exist in a different geographic area than Coho Salmon, the threats outlined in the Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Potential Assessment (Arbeider 2020) generally pertain to the .

Climate Change

Impacts from climate change on Fraser Coho Salmon are anticipated to be significant. Recent research suggests Pink and Chum salmon may be increasing in abundance due to climate warming in the North Pacific while Chinook and Coho Salmon are decreasing (Irvine and Fukuwaka 2011). Generally, freshwater environments are expected to be more negatively affected by climate warming compared to marine areas. Therefore, due to their long residency in freshwater and estuary habitats, Coho Salmon may be more vulnerable to climate change. Morrison et al. (2002) discerned that Fraser River peak flows are occurring earlier and summer water temperatures are higher compared to historic levels. Their model predicts by 2070-2099, overall flows will increase by 5%, but a decrease in peak flows of approximately 18% and 24 days earlier than the base period. In this same period, summer temperatures are predicted to increase by 1.9 degrees. Incidences of temperatures reaching 20 degrees and higher are expected to increase 10 fold, resulting in the potential of increased pre-spawn mortalities for Fraser salmon (Morrison et al. 2002). In addition to freshwater warming, the marine environment has limited Coho Salmon productivity. Recent low marine survival rates may be associated with poor environmental conditions within the Strait of Georgia. The proportion of Coho Salmon rearing within the Strait during their second year in the Pacific varies yearly. In recent years there has been an increased propensity of Coho Salmon leaving the Strait perhaps suggesting poor rearing conditions within the area. Furthermore, the warming of Northern Pacific waters formed in the winter of 2013, named “the Blob”, created unprecedented shifts in marine zooplankton productivity (Cavole et al. 2016). The warming waters initiated a transition in the predominant copepod species, increasing the abundance of less-nutritious warm-water species and decreasing the abundance of fatty cold-water copepods. Coho Salmon are dependent on cold water lipid-rich copepods as a food source during the early life stages. This shift in copepod species abundance may have impacted Coho Salmon recruitment (Cavole et al. 2016).

Climate change and global warming will likely intensify many other threats to Coho Salmon, generating cumulative impacts and hindering current management measures aimed at conservation (Arbeider 2020).

Land Use

Loss of suitable spawning and rearing freshwater habitat is a serious issue in the lower Fraser. Greater Vancouver, located within the , is the most populous city in British Columbia. Development and the effects associated with urbanization in Greater Vancouver, such as habitat destruction, water withdrawal, pollution, etc., have negatively impacted many salmon-bearing streams. An estimated 70% of the lower Fraser floodplain has been separated by dyke systems (Finn et al. 2021). Moreover, the majority of streams in the lower Fraser are categorized as threatened or endangered due to drainage of wetlands, degradation of the riparian zone, urban development, pollution, and dyking (Finn et al. 2021). Land within the lower Fraser Valley is highly impacted through extensive agriculture and forestry practices. Low water quality also represents a threat to juvenile Coho. The Fraser River drains an estimated one-quarter of BC’s total land area introducing elevated levels of chemicals, metals, and sewage from agriculture, mills, and industrial development into the lower Fraser estuary (Chittenden et al. 2010). Several restoration projects undertaken by the and local community groups are attempting to mitigate these impacts. Projects range from simple stream clean-ups to the construction of artificial spawning and rearing channels.

Harvest

Fisheries targeting Fraser Coho Salmon are limited due to highly restrictive management measures first implemented in 1997 to protect Coho Salmon. These fisheries restrictions are known to provide some protection to Coho Salmon as well. However, due to slight differences in run timing between the two , Coho Salmon may be impacted in late season fisheries in some years (Fisheries and Oceans Canada 2018) when the Coho Salmon window closure has concluded. The majority of Coho Salmon fishery mortalities occurring are incidental catches or through catch in mark-selective fisheries.

4.2.3 Strait of Georgia

This description was prepared by Canadian members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.3.1 Biological and Geographic Description

Figure 4.34: Strait of Georgia MU Watershed

4.2.3.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Figure 4.35: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Strait of Georgia MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.36: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery Coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Strait of Georgia MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

Figure 4.37: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Strait of Georgia , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.3.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.38: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Strait of Georgia MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. The marine distribution data of marked Coho Salmon populations in Canada was obtained through the Mark Recovery Program (MRP), operated by . Recoveries of coded-wire tagged and adipose-fin-clipped (AFC) marked Coho Salmon from various fisheries provide information on fishery and apparent marine distributions.

Table 4.14: Strait of Georgia MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Brookings Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Newport Sport	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Newport Troll	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.03%
Coos Bay Sport	0.00%	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Coos Bay Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.03%
Tillamook Sport	-	0.00%	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Tillamook Troll	0.00%	0.05%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.05%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.03%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	-	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	0.02%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.00%	0.04%	0.03%	-	-	0.07%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	-	-	0.03%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.02%	-	-	0.03%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.03%	0.09%	0.05%	-	-	0.17%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.04%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.02%	0.03%	0.04%	0.02%	-	0.10%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.02%	0.01%	-	-	0.03%
WA Area 4 Sport	0.00%	0.21%	0.10%	0.02%	-	0.32%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.16%	0.07%	-	0.24%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.22%	0.27%	0.25%	-	0.76%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.01%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.03%	0.00%	0.05%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	0.01%	0.11%	0.34%	0.36%	0.48%	1.30%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.04%	0.33%	0.87%	0.46%	1.70%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.04%	0.36%	1.50%	0.90%	2.80%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.11%	0.35%	0.49%	0.57%	0.13%	1.65%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.02%	0.07%	0.06%	0.16%	0.10%	0.42%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.00%	0.20%	0.31%	0.08%	0.22%	0.81%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.07%	0.05%	0.13%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.02%	0.10%	0.07%	0.19%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	0.02%	-	-	0.02%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.02%	0.02%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.03%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.06%	0.04%	0.10%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.03%	0.02%	0.06%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.00%	0.02%	0.05%	0.04%	-	0.11%
Johnstone Strait Troll	0.14%	1.40%	0.58%	0.23%	0.13%	2.49%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.37%	0.38%	0.05%	-	0.80%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.73%	0.35%	0.17%	-	1.25%
BC South Central Troll	1.05%	3.63%	1.42%	0.48%	-	6.58%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.23%	5.73%	3.08%	1.77%	-	10.81%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.43%	7.11%	5.26%	1.43%	-	14.22%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.43%	3.81%	1.13%	1.27%	0.41%	7.05%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Net	-	0.06%	0.06%	0.00%	-	0.13%
BC Central Net	-	0.57%	0.28%	0.27%	-	1.12%
NW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.02%	0.01%	-	0.08%	0.07%	0.17%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.08%	4.30%	3.29%	1.50%	9.18%
Georgia Straits Net	-	0.10%	0.36%	0.11%	2.03%	2.61%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	0.06%	0.61%	0.25%	0.13%	1.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.00%	0.20%	4.27%	2.13%	0.08%	6.69%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.11%	0.38%	0.38%	-	-	0.87%
BC Northern Sport	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
BC Central Sport	0.01%	0.14%	0.84%	0.44%	-	1.42%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.54%	1.01%	0.48%	0.98%	0.63%	3.65%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.23%	0.23%	0.08%	0.12%	-	0.65%
North Georgia Straits Sport	9.45%	8.06%	7.40%	4.37%	1.11%	30.39%
South Georgia Straits Sport	2.95%	1.27%	1.69%	1.21%	0.43%	7.56%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.01%	0.04%	0.04%	-	0.10%
SEAK Southeast Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.05%	0.03%	-	0.09%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.02%	0.05%	0.01%	-	0.08%
SEAK Northeast Troll	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	0.01%	0.14%	-	-	0.15%

Figure 4.39: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Strait of Georgia by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.15: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Strait of Georgia Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	306,419	281,303	3.0%	4.7%
2005	48,138	43,176	7.6%	2.4%
2006	51,218	46,341	5.8%	3.5%
2007	220,554	193,396	9.3%	2.5%
2008	15,361	13,847	7.9%	1.6%
2009	65,107	56,915	8.2%	4.0%
2010	80,449	74,314	4.9%	2.4%
2011	26,576	22,188	12.5%	3.6%
2012	28,866	24,272	12.7%	3.0%
2013	57,344	42,532	20.8%	4.4%
2014	42,333	28,757	26.3%	5.3%
2015	12,750	8,909	24.9%	4.8%
2016	12,356	11,134	8.5%	1.1%
2017	12,636	11,404	8.0%	1.5%
2018	45,757	39,200	11.4%	2.5%
2019	32,727	27,438	12.0%	3.8%
2020	109,574	101,501	4.7%	2.5%
2021	140,232	131,174	4.7%	1.4%
2022	128,444	117,105	6.3%	2.3%

Figure 4.40: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Strait of Georgia MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Strait of Georgia MU (Need esc goal for gs 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.41: Strait of Georgia post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2021. The vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Table 4.16: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Strait of Georgia from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	324,767.9	306,419.5
2005	158,722.7	48,138.1
2006	108,304.6	51,217.7
2007	204,321.8	220,554.1
2008	43,858.6	15,361.2
2009	36,433.1	65,107.2
2010	100,612.3	80,448.7
2011	40,868.1	26,576.5
2012	55,485.3	28,866.1
2013	43,920.7	57,343.7
2014	71,802.9	42,332.6
2015	70,169.3	12,749.8
2016	13,219.0	12,356.4
2017	16,844.9	12,635.6
2018	10,146.0	45,756.9
2019	14,845.7	32,727.2
2020	11,893.4	109,573.6
2021	34,259.4	140,231.7
2022	73,440.7	128,443.7
2023	120,390.9	NA
2024	279,714.3	NA

4.2.4 Skagit

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.4.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Skagit is one of the US Inside (refer to figure of inside MUs). This is comprised of all wild Coho Salmon that originate from the Skagit Basin. The Skagit River consists of Coho Salmon in the Skagit River Basin and its major tributaries, the Baker, Sauk-Suiattle, and Cascade Rivers. The Skagit River is located in Northern Puget Sound midway between Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia. The Skagit Basin drains the northern Cascade Mountains, flowing westward to Puget Sound and enters Puget Sound southwest of the city of Mt Vernon after splitting into to two similar-sized channels several miles above tidewater (Haymes 2008). The basin area accessible to anadromous salmonids downstream of the Skagit River reservoir system is 1,918 mi² [4,968 km²] (Volkhardt et al. 2007). It drains Puget Sound’s largest basin, with an area of nearly 4,000 mi2 and an average discharge of over 16,000 cfs (one-third of the freshwater inflow to Puget Sound). It is the second largest river system in the state of Washington in terms of annual discharge, after the Columbia River. The Skagit River contains 162 miles of mainstem river, with its origin in the Coveole Mountains of British Columbia.

The mainstem Skagit and Sauk rivers have two periods of peak flow, first during winter rain and snowmelt events, and the second during peak snow runoff in spring and early summer. The smaller tributaries are largely rain-fed, and have peak flow events during the winter rain season. Average annual rainfall is 35 inches [89 cm] per year at Mt. Vernon in the lower valley, increasing to up to 180 inches [457 cm] per year in the upper basin. Three large reservoirs in the upper Skagit River drainage (the first located at river mile (RM) 96.6 [KM 155.5] from the estuary) and two in the Baker River drainage provide flood control and hydroelectric generation. Upriver fish passage is only provided at the Baker Reservoir system, via a trap and haul system located at a diversion dam 0.3 miles [0.5 km] upstream of the Baker River confluence with the Skagit River at a diversion dam. Puget Sound Energy completed construction of this new, enhanced fish trap below Lower Baker Dam to capture migrating adult salmon for upstream transport around both Baker River dams. Construction on a juvenile salmon downstream fish trap, a floating surface collector, was completed in 2008 behind the upper Baker River Dam. A similar fish trap is under construction on Lake Shannon, below Lower Baker Dam.

In the 3,910 mi² [10,127 km²] watershed, 19% is owned by private and Washington State entities, 24% is managed by the Mt Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 44% by the North Cascade National Park and Recreation Area, and 13% is located within British Columbia (Beechie et al. 1994). The Skagit Bay estuary is partially enclosed by Whidbey Island to the west and Camano Island to the south. Relatively minimal development is located directly adjacent to the estuary in most areas. The WDFW Skagit Wildlife Area fronts the southeastern edge of Skagit Bay at the river mouth, and the northeastern end of the bay is bounded by the Swinomish Indian Reservation.

Recreational, conservation, and commercial forest activities are prevalent in the mid- and upper basin reaches. The lower and mid-basin areas have significant habitat impacts from agricultural and residential/commercial development in the floodplain and surrounding uplands. Extensive flood control structures degrade the salmonid habitat in the floodplain and estuary, with over 60 miles [97 km] of historically available slough and tributary habitat lost from the construction of flood control structures alone. The rapidly growing city of Mount Vernon, located adjacent to the Skagit River at RM 11 [KM 18] from the estuary, is the largest urban center in the . Other moderate-sized communities located in the are Burlington and Sedro Woolley, also located in the Skagit River floodplain a few miles upstream of Mt Vernon. Human population densities decline upstream of Sedro Woolley, though smaller, residentially-oriented communities are scattered along the Skagit mainstem upstream to the town of Newhalem at RM 96 (KM 154]. The Sauk River valley has only one significant population center, Darrington, located at RM 22 [KM 35] from the Sauk/Skagit confluence, though residential development and some agricultural activity is scattered along the valley floor.

In the upper reaches of the Skagit watershed, the land is primarily forested and moderately steep gradient; the main land use in this area is forestry. Below the confluence with the Sauk, the valley broadens and flattens and is used extensively for agriculture.

A major limiting factor on Skagit Coho Salmon production is floodplain diking and hydromodification, which has reduced distributary slough area by about 64%, and off-channel slough area by about 45% (Beechie et al. 1994). This has reduced Coho Salmon smolt production by an estimated 300,000 smolts per year (Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group 1992). Improperly placed culverts have also restricted access to a significant amount of tributary spawning and rearing habitat. Poor water quality and abnormally high flows, which are caused by agricultural practices and clear-cutting, have reduced production in much of the lower basin (Beamer et al. (2000)).

There are currently two recognized Coho Salmon populations in the system, Baker and Skagit (WDFW and WWTIT 1994). The Baker run historically entered the system somewhat earlier than the Skagit run, but the two populations are nonetheless managed as a single MU because: 1) there is considerable overlap in run timing, which would make it difficult to manage for separate escapement goals for each run; and 2) hatchery practices have so crossbred Baker and Skagit Coho Salmon that it is questionable whether a genetically separate Baker run population exists anymore (WDFW and WWTIT 1994).

Skagit Coho Salmon belong to the larger Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (Weitkamp et al. 1995). This ESU is currently a species of concern under the US Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011).

Numerous salmon hatchery facilities exist within the Skagit Basin, including small and large operations (MU figure). Below is a list of the larger Coho Salmon programs that are operating in the Skagit Basin.

• The WDFW operates the Marblemount Hatchery on the Cascade River at RM 0.5 at the confluence with Clark Creek (MU figure). The Cascade River is a tributary to the Skagit River at RM 78. Marblemount Hatchery was constructed in 1946 and currently rears Skagit spring, summer, and fall Chinook Salmon; Skagit Coho Salmon; Skagit Steelhead; and Ross Lake Rainbow Trout (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003a). The Coho Salmon program is operated as an isolated harvest program with an annual production goal of 250,000 smolts to be released on station, 45,000 fish to net pen projects (Oak Harbor and Roche Harbor), 100,000 fish to Skagit System Coop (Swinomish Tribe), and 13,000 eggs to educational and volunteer cooperatives. Its current purpose is to provide harvest opportunity for non-tribal sport and commercial fishers and tribal fishers (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003a). This program collects adult broodstock on-site, and has egg incubation and rearing facilities. Within the Skagit approximately 77% of the total hatchery fish reported to have been released for brood years 1983 through 2020 has been from the Marblemount Hatchery.

• A fish culture facility has also been in operation on the Baker River since the early 1970s, producing Sockeye, Rainbow Trout, and Coho Salmon (WDFW_and_PSE_2003?). Puget Sound Energy completed construction in 2010 of a new hatchery on the Baker River near the upper Baker Dam. Coho Salmon fry from this program are transported to net pens on Lake Shannon and they are later released as smolts into the Baker River and both reservoirs. This Coho Salmon program is operated as an integrated harvest and research program with an annual goal of releasing 60,000 smolts. The purpose of this program is to supply experimental and research smolts for gulper efficiency testing, serve as an indicator stock for wild Skagit Coho Salmon, and supplement natural production in the basin.

• Coho Salmon are also reared in net pens within the Oak Harbor Marina (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003b). This Coho Salmon program is a marine net pen program operated by WDFW and local sport angling groups and usually receives stock from the Marblemount Hatchery and is operated as an isolated program with an annual goal of releasing 30,000 smolts. The purpose of this program is to provide harvest opportunity for sport and commercial fishers.

4.2.4.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the Comprehensive Coho Management Plan, Skagit River wild Coho Salmon is the primary (or key) and hatchery production are either secondary (Swinomish Channel, Oak Harbor Pens) or auxiliary (Marblemount Hatchery, Baker River Hatchery) (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998). Under this plan, primary are controlling units in the sense that predefined management actions will be undertaken under specified abundance conditions, auxiliary are those managed to meet or exceed a minimum escapement, and secondary units are passively managed in mixed stock fisheries. Therefore, Skagit River Coho Salmon are managed for natural (wild) production. * JJ question - So, hatchery fish spawning in the river count towards the wild escapement goal, or not? This type of specificity should be spelled out for each MU very clearly.* While there is hatchery production within the system, fisheries are constrained to meet the natural escapement objectives. Thus, there are frequently significant surplus returns to the Marblemount Hatchery on the Cascade River. There have been fisheries in the Skagit terminal area targeted at hatchery Coho Salmon, but these have been sporadic, and have been confined to small areas (e.g., the creek immediately downstream of the hatchery, Swinomish Channel from 1986–1991, and Oak Harbor from 1994–1996).

Skagit Coho Salmon are also a primary for Puget Sound under the FMP (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013). Other primary in this region are Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Snohomish, Stillaguamish, and South Puget Sound (hatchery) Coho Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013). The ’s conservation objectives for these are based on the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, which includes management objectives and long-term goals for these stocks as developed by representatives from federal, state, and tribal agencies.

In Puget Sound, conservation objectives for specific stocks are based on either maximum sustainable production for stocks managed primarily for natural production or on hatchery escapement needs for stocks managed for artificial production. The original conservation objectives were developed by a State/Tribal Management Plan Development Team following the Boldt Decision (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) with the goal for natural spawning stocks defined as “the adult spawning population that will, on the average, maximize biomass of juvenile outmigrants subsequent to incubation and freshwater rearing under average environmental conditions”. The method used to develop the objectives was based on assessment of the quantity and quality of rearing habitat and the number of adult spawners required to fully seed the habitat. Some objectives have subsequently been modified by the US District Court Fisheries Advisory Board and later determinations of the WDFW/Tribal Technical Committee. However, annual natural management objectives may be adopted by the and authorized by NMFS which vary from the fisheries management plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of US versus Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) and subsequent US District Court orders.

In 2009, the adopted annual management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon as recommended by WDFW and tribal co-managers under provisions of US versus Washington. The annual objectives were based on the categorical status and associated maximum limits. The formally adopted management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon in November 2009, which were consistent with objectives, and in 2010 these new objectives replaced the longstanding FMP spawning escapement objectives.

The current / ceilings for the Skagit natural Coho Salmon population are provided in the table below. The current corresponding ocean abundance reference points are 62,500 and 22,857 adult Coho Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013). Prior to adoption of -based management for this in domestic and international management processes, natural Skagit River origin Coho Salmon were managed for a fixed escapement goal of 30,000. This goal was derived from a freshwater juvenile carrying capacity model (Zillges 1977).

Table 4.17: Current Skagit ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 22,858	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	22,858 – 62,500	21% – 35%
Abundant/Normal	> 62,500	36% – 60%

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

The Skagit MU has both hatchery and wild Coho Salmon indicator stock programs. Wild Yearling Coho Salmon are captured, coded-wire-tagged, and released within the Skagit Basin (Litz 2023). These releases are currently used as a marine survival rate indicator for the wild stock. The Skagit hatchery stock releases from Marblemount Hatchery and the tagged wild stock releases are used as indicator stocks. Coho Salmon released from Marblemount Hatchery have been double index tagged starting with brood year 1994.

Coded wire tag recovery-based survival and data are available for the Marblemount Hatchery and wild Coho Salmon tagging programs (Haymes 2008). The wild stock program (AKA Baker River program) began with broodyear 1983 and its purpose is to supply experimental and research smolts for gulper efficiency testing, serve as an indicator stock for wild Skagit Coho Salmon, and supplement natural production in the basin (WDFW_and_PSE_2003?). An average of 39,000 Baker Lake wild smolts were captured, coded-wire tagged, and adipose fin clipped annually (Figure 4.42) for broodyears 1983 through 1995. Beginning with brood year 1996, an average of 20,000 fish have been captured and released annually with a and their fins intact. The Marblemount Hatchery Coho Salmon program has been in existence for over 64 years and its purpose is to provide harvest opportunity (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003a). The hatchery indicator program is currently a program (differentially tagged fish released with or without adipose clips) with a goal of releasing 45,000 tagged fish of each group, one with an adipose fin clip and one without (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003a) (Figure 4.43). Annual tagged and adipose fin clipped releases prior to the implementation of the program were 68,000 on average (Table 12.1). The program began with brood year 1994 and an average of 70,000 tagged and clipped fish have been released annually, while tagged and unclipped fish have averaged approximately 44,000 annually. values for the non-ad clipped+ Coho Salmon provide a surrogate measure of exploitation for natural origin Coho Salmon from this . There is no regular sampling of the freshwater sport fisheries in the , which results in some negative bias in tag recoveries. Double index tag groups released for the Skagit are provided below.

Figure 4.42: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Skagit MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.43: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery Coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Skagit MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Since 1996, WDFW and tribal biologists have developed forecasts of wild Coho Salmon run size for all primary and most secondary in Puget Sound and the Washington coast (Zimmerman 2013). These annual forecasts are described in the ’s Preseason Forecast I document available each February [e.g., Pacific Fishery Management Council (2013); www.pcouncil.org]. These forecasts rely on estimates of wild Coho Salmon production (i.e., smolts) paired with estimates of marine survival. Wild Coho Salmon production estimates for each of the primary and secondary in Puget Sound were derived from results of juvenile trapping studies conducted in the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Green, Nisqually, and Deschutes rivers as well as in tributaries to Lake Washington and Hood Canal. Analyses of these long-term data sets have demonstrated that wild Coho Salmon smolt production is limited by a combination of factors including seeding levels (i.e., escapement), environmental effects (flows, marine derived nutrients), and habitat degradation (Zimmerman 2012).

Estimates of wild Coho Salmon production in the Skagit Basin are based on catch of wild Coho Salmon smolts in a juvenile trapping program on the lower mainstem Skagit River (Litz 2023). WDFW operates a scoop-and-screw trap combination in the lower Skagit River mainstem, located at RM 17 from the river mouth. Trapping began in 1990 and the juvenile trap is calibrated using recaptures of wild yearling Coho marked and released from an upstream tributary (Mannser Creek, RM 35). Coho Salmon abundance is calculated using a Petersen estimator with Chapman modification (Seber 1973; Volkhardt et al. 2007). Estimated smolt production has been quite consistent in the Skagit , averaging 1.1 million smolts annually from 1990 to 2022 (Figure 4.44). Smolt production has varied from a low of 426,963 in 2008 to a high of 1,885,000 in 2002 and has exceeded 1,000,000 smolts in 20 of the last 33 years. Freshwater productivity (smolts/female) during this period was a function of Coho spawner abundance. The smolt-spawner function derived based on Skagit Coho Salmon estimates is comparable to systems with census counts, lending further credibility to the Skagit juvenile and adult estimates.

Figure 4.44: Estimated number of Skagit MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1990 through 2022

Marine survival rates of wild Coho Salmon stocks have been estimated using wild indicator stocks in four geographic regions of Puget Sound: Big Beef Creek (within the Hood Canal MU); Deschutes River; South Fork Skykomish River; and Baker River (within the Skagit MU) (Zimmerman 2012). These populations are assumed to be representative of the different Puget Sound regions. In the Baker River, a tributary to the Skagit River, marine survival of Coho Salmon smolts has averaged 7.8% (range of 1.1% and 13.9%) over 29 brood years (1989–1997, 2000–2020), with a high of 13.9% for brood year 1987 and a low of 1.1% for brood year 2003. High survival (>11.5%) for brood years 2020 through 2022 is encouraging.

Figure 4.45: Estimated marine survival rates for Baker River Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Skagit abundance forecast is 63,430, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Abundant” under the 2019 and “Normal” under the . This results in an allowable total of no more than 60%.

This forecast was based on a prediction of total (Baker wild + Skagit wild) smolt to ocean age-3 survival. Note that this forecast is not based on the Baker River wild indicator survival. Instead, the total survival was calculated assuming that the ratio of total wild terminal run size to Baker River wild indicator run size is equal to the ratio of total pre-terminal wild catch to Baker River pre-terminal wild catch. Using that ratio, total wild run size was calculated utilizing pieces of the Skagit co-manager run reconstruction, , and . Due to the large uncertainty surrounding how ocean conditions would influence the survival of 2023 outmigrants, ’s alternative Coho Salmon forecast for Baker River wild indicator survival in the report ‘2024 Wild Coho Forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and Lower Columbia’ relying on generalized additive model methodology was also incorporated into the final agreed upon forecast (Litz 2024).

Escapement Monitoring

Escapements to the Baker system are counted at the Baker River trap. Hatchery fish are distinguished by ad-clips. Wild fish returning to the Baker, including those that carry , are not ad-clipped.

Natural Coho Salmon escapement estimation efforts in the Skagit have a long and problematic history and are a textbook example of the challenges of estimating Coho Salmon escapements to large watersheds (Haymes 2008). An early effort at estimating a basin-total Coho Salmon escapement to this was a 1961 Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF, now Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or WDFW) mark-recapture (M/R) escapement study. This study focused on deriving a Pink Salmon escapement estimate for that year, but also tagged returning adult Coho Salmon to develop a Coho Salmon escapement estimate from spawning ground tag recoveries (Stockley 1963). The Coho Salmon escapement estimate derived from this study (116,726) was confounded by low numbers of tagged Coho Salmon adults (289), limited tag recovery effort during the Coho Salmon spawning season, low numbers of tags recovered, and poor distribution of the tag recoveries (68 tags, of which 60 came from the Baker Lake adult trap, a drainage which accounts for a small fraction of the total natural Coho Salmon escapement to this ).

A more serious attempt to directly estimate natural Coho escapements in the northern Puget Sound river basins was made in 1976 and 1977 when two major M/R escapement studies were conducted to estimate the Coho and Chum Salmon escapements to these rivers (Eames et al. 1983). The results of these studies provided the information needed for implementation of a Base-Year Index escapement estimation approach for the rivers in the Puget Sound region. The Base-Year Index escapement estimation approach was selected by the Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF) for annual estimation of Chum, Pink, and Coho Salmon escapements for these river basins because the method utilized visual spawning survey observations in lieu of expensive annual M/R studies.

However, questions soon arose about the accuracy of escapement estimates produced by the index-base year approach. A new M/R escapement study for the Skagit River was attempted by the treaty tribes in 1984 to generate a comparative escapement estimate, but an inadequate number of Coho Salmon were tagged to develop an estimate (Hayman and Beamer 1987). An alternative approach was also examined for the 1984 escapement using the ratio of wild to hatchery-origin Coho Salmon observed in the lower river test fisheries multiplied by the hatchery return to Marblemount Hatchery to estimate the wild escapement (a “reverse form” Petersen M/R-type estimate), which produced an estimate considerably higher than the Base-Year Index approach for that year, 100,000 vs. 35,600 (Hayman and Beamer 1987).

In the 1986 to 1990 time period, M/R-based natural Coho Salmon escapement estimation studies were again conducted in the Skagit Basin by the treaty tribes (Conrad et al. 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c). Returning adult Coho Salmon were captured by beach seine in the lower river, jaw tagged, and the tags subsequently recovered in in-river test fisheries, hatchery, dam or tributary fish traps, or spawning ground surveys. Peterson and Darroch analyses were conducted on the jaw tag recoveries to estimate the escapement in each of these years and compared against Index Spawning Redd-based estimates, estimates based on the proportional contribution of hatchery origin Coho Salmon to the total escapement, and the traditional Base-Year Index method that were conducted in the same years. The M/R-based escapement estimates were up to 575% higher than the Base-Year Index estimates for the same time period. The estimates based on proportional contribution of hatchery Coho Salmon to the Skagit escapement conducted in the same time period were also considerably higher than the Base-Year Index approach. These results were also supported by the observed smolt production estimates in this same time period which indicated the escapement estimates generated by the Base-Year Index approach were too low to produce the observed juvenile production.

In the 1990s another escapement estimation approach was developed for Skagit Coho Salmon that uses the observed marine survival rate of tagged Baker Lake origin wild Coho Salmon for each year multiplied by the parent year Skagit basin smolt out-migration to produce an estimate of total adult recruitment, which is multiplied by (1 - the Baker Wild -recovery fishery ) to generate the escapement estimates (Seiler et al. 1995). These estimates were also typically considerably higher than the Base-Year Index estimates.

There are a number of reasons for the differences observed in the escapement estimates derived by the various methods discussed above. The Base-Year Index escapement formula for the Skagit has an inherent negative bias due to a decision made by WDF management biologists following completion of the 1977 mark-recapture escapement study to select a value approaching the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval from the M/R study results as the “base year” escapement estimate [WDF_1985]. The 29,200 value that was selected by the WDF managers is considerably lower than the M/R study point estimate of 43,000, which has a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 25,211–148,464. This decision was based on concern about the limited number of marks recovered in the M/R study, and the subsequent possibility of positive bias in the M/R-based estimate. Further uncertainty in the 1977 M/R estimate was highlighted by a re-analysis of the 1977 M/R study data by the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) that produced a point estimate of 110,758, with a 95% CI of 4,564–216,952 (Conrad n.d.).

There are uncertainties regarding the point estimates of escapement derived by the newer M/R-based estimates, due to the positive bias that can occur from missed mark recoveries at fish traps or spawning grounds, under-estimates of post-tagging mortality or tag loss, size selectivity in the terminal test fisheries, or other issues (Cousens et al. 1982). The accuracy of the “marine survival smolt outmigration”-based method is dependent upon the assumption that the Baker River natural-origin smolts survive and are exploited in fisheries at the same rate as the rest of the Skagit natural origin smolts, which may not be true. The veracity of the “test fishery hatchery/wild ratio”-based method is dependent upon an equal on the hatchery and wild populations. Due to unresolved uncertainties at this time regarding the accuracy of all the various available methods and associated estimates, the escapement estimates currently used by the co-managers for management purposes for the 1986-to-present period are an average of the annual results of the Base-Year Index and M/R (“Reverse Petersen”)-based estimates of escapement. Historical trends in escapement for the Skagit are provided in ToDo. Known distribution of spawners within the basin is depicted in Figure 4.46 (derived from WDFW’s Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) located at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/).

ToDo: create escapement figures (from post-season FRAM database) Skagit MU escapement estimates, return years x-x.

Figure 4.46: Spawner distribution of Coho Salmon in the Skagit River Basin.

Fishery Monitoring

A fundamental requirement of abundance-based Coho Salmon management under the is that all fishery impacts on individual be annually monitored with respect to both number of fish caught and CWTs. This requires basic reporting of total impacts by fishery and the capacity to estimate each fishery’s -specific impacts. Total fishing mortalities for each must be estimated to enable managers the ability to evaluate the annual relative to the -prescribed impact limits.

Assessments of total fishing mortalities for each must include both directed and incidentally-landed catch as well as estimates of non-landed mortalities. These estimates may be obtained through monitoring programs or, in some cases, generated through the use of algorithms built into the . Monitoring programs may involve test fisheries or data collected directly from fishers (e.g., through creel survey interviews, and other fisher-reported techniques, such as log books or fish-tickets). Estimation of non-landed fishing mortality requires annual estimates of encounter rates by fishery and gear.

Mark-selective fisheries have been intensively monitored to collect data to estimate key parameters characterizing MSF fisheries and their impacts on unmarked salmon. Sampling activities include dockside creel sampling, on-water observation, and a Voluntary Trip Report (VTR) system. Data collected from this sampling is used to estimate key parameters necessary to manage fisheries and integrate MSFs in the FRAM model. These parameters include: mark rate of the targeted Coho Salmon populations; total number of Coho Salmon harvested or released by mark-status, the coded-wire-tag stock composition of landed Coho Salmon, and total mortality of marked and unmarked Coho.

Management impacts for each are generally evaluated using the coast-wide system. This system manages information on the release and recovery of . The volume of tags recovered for a given will depend on tagging rates, marine survival rates, exploitation and escapement rates, and sampling rates in fisheries and escapements. A recent review of CWT methods (Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup 2008) recommends target sampling rates of 20% for the landed catch and 20% for escapements, with a minimum of 10 tags collected in each fishery or escapement stratum.

Post-season estimates are also generated using the Post-Season FRAM Model. Post-season estimates of catch and escapement are entered into the updated FRAM model with the same fishery regulation and effort package used for preseason modeling to generate post-season estimates.

Enhancement

There are numerous hatchery programs releasing Coho Salmon within the Skagit Basin. Since brood year 1983 to 2020, the largest ones include Marblemount, Baker Lake, Puget Sound Energy, and Swinomish Channel PD Hatchery programs. Over this time period approximately 690,000 Coho Salmon have been released annually on average. Marblemount Hatchery made up the majority (77%) of all releases, followed by Baker Lake Hatchery (9%), Puget Sound Energy (7%; ended with 2009 brood), and Swinomish Channel PD (2%; ended with 1990 brood). Prior to the implmentation of mass marking, total hatchery production within the of brood years 1983–1994 were highly variable, ranging from a high of three million fish released from brood year 1983 to a low of 380,000 fish from brood year 1988 (Figure 4.47) (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977). With the advent of technology to automatically remove adipose fins and/or insert using mobile “tagging trailers”, mass marking of hatchery fish was implemented for Coho Salmon in the mid-1990s (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee 1999). Mass marking allows mark selective fisheries (MSF) for Coho Salmon in which marked hatchery fish can be retained and unmarked wild fish released, resulting in higher harvest rates on hatchery fish than wild fish. Mass marking was fully implemented for Coho Salmon from the Columbia River, Washington coast, and Puget Sound with the 1997 brood, including both mass marking (adipose fin clip) the vast majority of hatchery fish and use of select groups (paired clipped and unclipped fish with ) (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee 1999). Double index tagging of hatchery fish at Marblemount Hatchery began with the 1994 brood and mass-marked fish were released beginning with brood year 1995. group releases and their associated tag codes are listed in Table 12.1. Hatchery production within the for brood years 1995 to brood year 2020 have averaged 500,000 annually, with a low of 252,000 in 2000 and a high of 795,000 in 2018. Of these, an average of 290,000 hatchery fish have been mass marked and released within the (Figure 4.47) (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977).

Figure 4.47: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Skagit , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.4.3 Management Unit Performance

This section of the report includes summaries of forecast performance, abundances and abundance categories, and and associated impacting fisheries for the Skagit . Base period are also provided.

Forecast Evaluation

A comparison of preseason adult ocean age-3 recruit forecasts with post-season estimates derived from Backwards FRAM run reconstruction have been mixed, with some forecasts over estimating abundances and others underestimating it (Figure 4.48). During catch years 2004–2021, predicted cohort size (without natural mortality) ranged from a low of 26,799 (2007) to a high of 155,814 (2004), while post-season estimates ranged from 11,521 (2006) to 145,283 (2004). Accordingly, the difference between preseason and post-season estimates varied from -210% (2007) to +89% (2006) of the preseason estimates.

ToDo: SoPanel also wishes to see the numbers (pre, post, % diff from pre by year).

Figure 4.48: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Skagit MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

Base Period Exploitation Rates The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Skagit are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

ToDo: create table of the list of CWTs used in the base period. I think they are identified in the static file.

During the base period, Coho Salmon production from the Skagit contributed to US and Canadian marine sport and commercial fisheries in southern British Columbia, the northern Washington coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and inner Puget Sound. Terminal tribal and non-tribal set and drift-net Coho Salmon net fisheries occur in commercial fishery management area 8 and the lower Skagit River. Moderate-sized Coho Salmon sport fisheries occured in sport fishery management area 8.1, the mainstem Skagit River, and the Cascade River. The terminal fishery co-managers are WDFW, and the Upper Skagit, Sauk-Suiattle, and Swinomish Tribes.

Table 4.18: Skagit MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Brookings Sport	-	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.01%
Newport Sport	0.02%	0.05%	0.04%	-	-	0.11%
Newport Troll	0.04%	0.12%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.21%
Coos Bay Sport	0.02%	0.02%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.05%
Coos Bay Troll	0.02%	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.06%
Tillamook Sport	0.01%	0.03%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.06%
Tillamook Troll	0.01%	0.16%	0.06%	0.01%	-	0.23%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.07%	0.01%	-	0.08%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.00%	0.06%	0.07%	-	-	0.13%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.09%	0.07%	0.08%	0.01%	0.25%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.04%	0.07%	0.01%	-	0.13%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.09%	0.06%	0.01%	-	0.18%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.03%	0.32%	0.20%	0.02%	-	0.56%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.01%	0.05%	0.04%	-	0.14%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.06%	0.13%	0.18%	0.08%	-	0.44%
WA Area 3 Sport	0.00%	0.04%	0.02%	-	-	0.06%
WA Area 4 Sport	0.01%	0.42%	0.44%	0.11%	-	0.98%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.04%	0.45%	0.10%	0.01%	0.59%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.18%	0.61%	0.78%	0.37%	0.05%	1.98%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	0.17%	0.00%	0.19%
Willapa Bay & FW Trib Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.07%	0.01%	0.09%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.09%	0.38%	0.78%	0.51%	1.76%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.09%	0.32%	0.08%	0.49%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.10%	0.54%	0.16%	0.80%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.24%	0.94%	1.79%	2.05%	0.19%	5.22%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.06%	0.30%	0.29%	0.85%	0.46%	1.95%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.03%	0.06%	0.09%	0.15%	0.03%	0.35%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.16%	0.19%	0.35%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.02%	0.22%	0.26%	0.50%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	0.15%	0.62%	1.89%	2.66%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	0.11%	1.79%	3.72%	5.61%
Skagit R Net	-	-	-	-	2.23%	2.23%
Skagit River Test Net	-	-	-	-	1.46%	1.46%
WA Area 8.1 Sport (Skagit Bay)	-	-	0.37%	0.04%	0.13%	0.54%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.18%	0.22%	0.29%	0.66%	0.29%	1.65%
Skagit R Sport	-	-	-	-	0.74%	0.74%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	1.34%	1.50%	2.84%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	2.10%	2.24%	4.35%
WA Area 8.2 Sport (Everett)	-	-	0.07%	0.08%	-	0.15%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	0.14%	0.09%	0.09%	0.10%	0.05%	0.46%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.73%	0.26%	0.99%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.43%	0.15%	0.58%
WA Area 10E Non-Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 10E Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 10F-G Treaty Net (Lake Union)	-	-	0.04%	-	-	0.04%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	0.04%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.01%	0.07%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.18%	0.05%	0.23%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WAArea 13 Marine Sport	0.01%	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
Area 12 Marine Sport	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.04%
Area 9/9A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Area 9/9A Treaty Net (On Res)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.03%	0.03%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Johnstone Strait Troll	0.03%	0.12%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.17%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.04%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.09%	0.01%	-	-	0.10%
BC South Central Troll	0.12%	0.37%	0.07%	0.02%	-	0.59%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.16%	3.07%	1.43%	0.57%	-	5.23%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.76%	11.82%	8.56%	2.34%	-	23.48%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.12%	0.51%	0.09%	0.04%	-	0.77%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Net	-	0.02%	-	-	-	0.02%
BC Central Net	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	-	0.02%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.22%	0.19%	0.42%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.01%	0.18%	0.06%	0.01%	0.26%
Georgia Straits Net	-	-	0.02%	-	0.00%	0.02%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.02%	0.02%	-	0.05%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.01%	0.28%	5.01%	3.74%	-	9.05%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.02%	0.03%	0.02%	-	-	0.06%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.57%	0.99%	0.45%	0.86%	0.23%	3.10%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.02%	0.18%	0.09%	0.00%	-	0.30%
North Georgia Straits Sport	1.27%	0.80%	0.53%	0.15%	0.00%	2.75%
South Georgia Straits Sport	0.64%	0.12%	0.14%	0.02%	0.04%	0.96%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%

ToDo: check this text and add summaries for MSF vs NSF too

In the most recent years assessed, the Skagit MU has been primarily harvested by Skagit River Net (median = 14% ER) and Skagit River Sport (8% ER) fisheries, both terminal area fisheries, with the remainder of the fisheries impacting this MU at an average of less than 4% per year.

ToDo: add (or call) the fishery figure for Skagit (fishery on y-axis and ER% on x axis averaged over a set number of years - I belive they are already created!)

Figure 4.49: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Skagit by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Total have generally declined, averaging 59% between 1986 and 1995 then gradually falling to an extended period of low (26%) during 1998–2004 (Table 5 1; Figure 4 2). have increased somewhat since 2005, averaging 36% during 2005–2011. Up until 1997 the by Canadian fishers averaged 36%, but has since declined to an average of less than 1.5%. A comparison of by major fisheries during the base period and the most recent five years (2006–2010) is provided in Figure 5 1, while by major fisheries by year since 1986 are listed in Appendix D. Individual fishery management areas within Washington State are depicted in Figure Figure 1.4.

Table 4.19: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival (Baker River Wild), and (ER) of the Skagit Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	169,157	9.8%	138,815	0.8%	17.2%
2005	52,362	6.4%	33,058	1.6%	35.3%
2006	11,518	1.1%	7,702	1.8%	31.3%
2007	84,423	8.6%	53,105	2.6%	34.5%
2008	35,458	4.5%	24,095	1.2%	30.9%
2009	87,600	12.3%	60,775	1.7%	28.9%
2010	64,581	3.4%	34,015	0.9%	46.5%
2011	78,116	4.1%	43,918	3.1%	40.6%
2012	139,009	8.3%	92,683	2.8%	30.5%
2013	150,661	6.6%	85,752	4.1%	39.0%
2014	51,696	5.2%	24,816	6.0%	46.0%
2015	15,512	1.3%	5,793	5.7%	56.9%
2016	44,736	5.9%	35,821	1.6%	18.3%
2017	22,278	5.6%	20,182	2.2%	7.2%
2018	36,911	9.7%	19,044	3.8%	44.6%
2019	27,499	6.7%	14,244	5.2%	43.0%
2020	41,468	6.0%	23,806	2.4%	40.2%
2021	111,989	13.2%	75,532	2.6%	30.0%
2022	124,042	12.8%	92,298	3.1%	22.5%
2023	NA	11.5%	NA	NA	NA
2024	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 4.50: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Skagit MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Skagit MU (30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Abundances and Escapement, and Harvest Estimated total abundance and escapement in the Skagit has been quite variable during 2004–2021, with a downward trend in total abundance and in escapement during this period (Figure 4.51). Total abundance has averaged approximately 68,000 annually, and varied from a low of 11,518 fish (2006) to a high of 169,157 fish (2004) and has exceeded the Abundant category threshold of > 62,500 fish in 8 of 18 years between 2004 and 2021. During this time period, abundance has fallen below the critical threshold of 22,858 fish in of these years. Annual estimated escapement has averaged 43,786 during 2004 through 2021, with a low of 5,793 fish (2015) and a high of 138,815 (2004).

Harvest of Skagit MU has also varied from year to year, and has declined slightly over this time period. Less than 50,000 fish have been harvested annually in all but one of the years (2013) and most of the harvest has been in non-selective fisheries.

Figure 4.51: Skagit post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2021. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.52: Skagit pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.20: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Skagit from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	156,648.0	169,157.3
2005	62,122.2	52,362.3
2006	107,112.0	11,518.2
2007	26,935.9	84,422.8
2008	62,022.3	35,457.7
2009	33,559.5	87,600.3
2010	96,368.1	64,580.7
2011	138,755.9	78,115.7
2012	48,528.1	139,008.7
2013	137,868.9	150,661.2
2014	113,145.6	51,696.0
2015	122,122.0	15,511.6
2016	8,928.4	44,735.8
2017	11,195.4	22,278.3
2018	59,449.2	36,910.9
2019	58,238.1	27,499.0
2020	31,114.7	41,468.5
2021	58,820.8	111,989.0
2022	80,809.8	124,041.9
2023	43,406.6	NA
2024	63,837.1	NA

4.2.5 Stillaguamish

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.5.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Stillaguamish is one of the US Inside (refer to figure of inside MUs) and consists of the Stillaguamish River and its major tributaries, the North and South Forks (Figure x). Coho Salmon make use of all available habitat within the watershed not constrained by barriers to migration. The is made up of a single stock (Stillaguamish Coho Salmon), managed for natural production and for the purpose of achieving a desired spawning escapement objective. Stillaguamish River Coho Salmon belong to the larger Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant unit [ESU; Weitkamp et al. (1995)]. This ESU is currently a species of concern under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2009).

The Stillaguamish River basin drains the north-central Cascade Mountains, flowing westward and entering Puget Sound at Port Susan, near the town of Stanwood. The basin is 685 mi² (1774 km²) in area, with 975 linear miles (1,569 km) of mainstem and tributary habitat (Nelson et al. 1997). The North Fork Stillaguamish sub-basin has the highest quality Coho Salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the . The South Fork Stillaguamish basin is characterized by higher gradient habitat with lower average water temperatures that is less suitable for optimal Coho Salmon production, particularly upstream of approximately river mile 25 (KM 40), near the town of Jordan. The two forks unite at the city of Arlington in northwestern Snohomish County. The combined stream flows west, entering the north end of Port Susan, an arm of Puget Sound, approximately 10 miles (16 km) west of Arlington. The North and South Fork Stillaguamish mainstems have two periods of peak flow, first during winter rain and snowmelt events, and the second during peak snow runoff in spring and early summer. The smaller tributaries are largely rain-fed, and have most peak flow events during the winter season.

Recreational, environmental conservation, and commercial forest activities are prevalent in the mid and upper basin. The lower and mid-basin areas have significant habitat impacts from agricultural and residential/commercial development in the floodplain and surrounding uplands, and flood control activities. Residential developments and agricultural lands rim the Port Susan estuary.

There are no major dams or other large man-made fish passage impediments located in the . Granite Falls on the South Fork Stillaguamish River was considered to be a natural migration block to all anadromous salmonids except summer steelhead (C. Kraemer, WDFW retired, personal communication). In 1956, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) constructed a fish ladder at the falls to allow consistent anadromous salmonid access to the upper South Fork (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2001).

4.2.5.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the Comprehensive Coho Management Plan (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998), Stillaguamish River wild Coho Salmon is the primary (key) , and off-station production is a secondary . Under this plan, primary are controlling units in the sense that predefined management actions will be undertaken under specified abundance conditions, auxiliary are those managed to meet or exceed a minimum escapement, and secondary units are passively managed in mixed stock fisheries.

The Stillaguamish consists of just one stock, managed for natural production and for the purpose of achieving a desired spawning escapement objective (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011). Stillaguamish Coho Salmon are a primary for Puget Sound under the . Other primary in this region are eastern Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Skagit, Snohomish, and South Puget Sound (hatchery) Coho Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011). The ’s conservation objectives for these are based on the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, which defines management objectives and long-term goals for these stocks as developed by representatives from Federal, state, and tribal agencies. Conservation objectives for specific stocks are based on either maximum sustainable production for stocks managed primarily for natural production or on hatchery escapement needs for stocks managed for artificial production. The original conservation objectives were developed by a State/Tribal Management Plan Development Team following the Boldt Decision (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) with the goal for natural spawning stocks defined as “the adult spawning population that will, on the average, maximize biomass of juvenile outmigrants subsequent to incubation and freshwater rearing under average environmental conditions.” Assessments of the quantity and quality of rearing habitat and the number of adult spawners required to fully seed the habitat were used to develop the management objectives. Some objectives have subsequently been modified by the US District Court Fisheries Advisory Board and the WDFW/Tribal Technical Committee. However, annual natural management objectives may vary from the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of US versus Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) and subsequent US District Court orders.

In 2009, the adopted annual management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon as recommended by WDFW and tribal co-managers under provisions of US versus Washington. The annual objectives were based on the categorical status and associated maximum limits. The formally adopted management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon which were consistent with objectives in November 2009. The current / ceilings for the Stillaguamish natural Coho Salmon population are provided in the table below. The current corresponding ocean abundance breakpoints are 20,000 and 9,385 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2012). Prior to adoption of -based management for this in domestic and international management processes, natural Stillaguamish River origin Coho Salmon were managed for a fixed escapement goal of 17,000. This goal was derived from a freshwater juvenile carrying capacity model (Zillges 1977).

Table 4.21: Current Stillaguamish ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 9,386	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	9,386 – 20,000	21% – 35%
Abundant/Normal	> 20,000	36% – 60%

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Hatchery and wild coded-wire tagging programs have been limited within the Stillaguamish basin. A smolt trapping study conducted by the Stillaguamish Tribe on brood years 1984–87, where approximately 47,000 Coho Salmon smolts were captured, clipped and tagged, and released annually, is the only source of wild tagging data from the Stillaguamish Watershed. Highly variable numbers of coded-wire-tagged and ad-clipped fish have been released from Harvey Creek which still operates, and Jim Creek and North Fork Hatcheries that have been discontinued. On average, 57,000 coded-wire-tagged fish have been released annually from Harvey Creek when the program has been implemented. Since 1986, this hatchery has reported releases for 20 broods, however, tagged fish have been released for only 8 of these brood years. The North Fork Hatchery released Coho Salmon smolts in 10 years during the period of 1988 to 2011; however, tagged fish were released for only BYs 2009 through 2011. Due to a lack of consistent tagging programs within the , analysts have used the following two indicator stocks releases in the Snohomish as surrogates in the development of the FRAM base period and subsequent -based analyses: Bernie Gobin Hatchery (Tulalip Creek) and Wallace River Hatchery (Skykomish) (CoTC 2011). Wallace River fish have been double index tagged starting with brood year 1996.

add text for recoveries? Make sure to include that this could include clipped and unclipped fish

Figure 4.53: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Stillaguamish MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.54: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Stillaguamish MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Each year, a preseason abundance forecast of age-3 ocean recruits for Stillaguamish Coho Salmon is developed jointly by the Stillaguamish and Tulalip Tribes and WDFW by February. These annual forecasts are described in the ’s Preseason Forecast I document each February [Pacific Fishery Management Council (2012); www.pcouncil.org]. This is part of a larger WDFW-tribal effort to develop forecasts of wild Coho Salmon run size for all primary and most secondary in Puget Sound and the Washington coast (Seiler et al. 1995; Zimmerman 2011). These forecasts rely on estimates of wild Coho Salmon production (i.e., smolts) paired with estimates of marine survival. Wild Coho Salmon production estimates for each of the primary and secondary in Puget Sound were derived from results of juvenile trapping studies conducted in the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Green, Nisqually, and Deschutes rivers, as well as in tributaries to Lake Washington and Hood Canal. Analysis of these long-term data sets have demonstrated that wild Coho Salmon smolt production is limited by a combination of factors including seeding levels (i.e., escapement), environmental effects (flows, marine derived nutrients), and habitat degradation (Zimmerman 2011).

WDFW’s Wild Salmon Production Evaluation (WSPE) Unit measured Coho Salmon production of brood years 1979 through 1981 in the Stillaguamish River. During these years, the watershed was considered to be adequately seeded. A juvenile trap was operated upstream of river mile 16 between 1981 and 1983. Basin-wide production was the sum of estimated production above the trap and expanded production below the trap. The average production estimate above the trap was 284,000 smolts (Seiler et al. 1984), 42.9% of the predicted production potential for this portion of the watershed (Zillges 1977). Expanded production below the trap (86,000 smolts) was calculated by applying the ratio of measured to potential production above the trap (42.9%) to the potential production below the trap (201,520 smolts).

Estimated smolt production has been quite consistent in the Stillaguamish , averaging 355,000 smolts annually during 1995 to 2022. Smolt production has varied from a low of 115,000 in 2016 to a high of 555,000 in 2010 (Table 4 1).

Figure 4.55: Estimated number of Stillaguamish MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1990 through 2022

Marine survival rates of wild Coho Salmon stocks have been measured using wild indicator stocks in four geographic regions of Puget Sound: Big Beef Creek, Deschutes River, South Fork Skykomish River, and Baker River (Zimmerman 2011). These populations are assumed to be representative of the different Puget Sound regions. Marine survival rates for wild Stillaguamish Coho Salmon are estimated from the S.F. Skykomish in the Snohomish . Marine survival for this indicator population has averaged 12.7% during return years 1986-2011, with a high of 23.6% in 1994 and a low of 3.6% in 2006.

Figure 4.56: Estimated marine survival rates for Skykomish River Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Stillaguamish abundance forecast is 30,809, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Abundant” under the 2019 and “Normal” under the . This results in an allowable total of no more than 50%.

Regressing annual Coho Salmon smolt trap catch per unit of effort (CPUE; total fish/total hours fished) against terminal run size one year later generates a relationship that could be used to predict Stillaguamish adult returns. However, due to the high variability in marine survival, Coho Salmon smolt numbers at the trap are not a very precise predictor of adult returns one year later. Therefore, the SF Skykomish River marine survival estimate for each brood was used to correct the Stillaguamish smolt trap data, which tightened the regression relationship with the terminal run. The natural Coho Salmon marine survival rate from smolt to adult is estimated at 5.7%, based on recent 5-year SF Skykomish River marine survival estimates.

Escapement Monitoring

The method used for estimating natural Coho Salmon escapements in this is the Base-Year Index approach (Haymes 2008). This approach is used to estimate annual Coho Salmon escapements to most of the major river basins and geographically associated aggregations of smaller independent tributaries in the Puget Sound region, exclusive of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Base-Year Index approach was adopted for estimating Coho Salmon escapements in this region because the distribution of Coho Salmon spawners is geographically broad in each river basin. Because of this, an approach is required that is not dependent on the direct census of a large portion of the total spawning habitat. In addition, assessments of serial live and/or dead fish observations are needed instead of spawning redd enumeration because the multiple species overlap and/or high spawning densities often make Coho Salmon redd enumeration impractical.

The Base-Year Index method allows expansion of an annual index of abundance developed from serial field counts of live or dead salmon, collected in a relatively small fraction of the total freshwater habitat, to an estimate of basin or region-total escapement. A series of point counts of live Coho Salmon abundance are made in several fixed-location survey reaches, distributed throughout each major river basin or region. At the end of the spawning season an abundance index is developed for each index survey reach using the “area under the curve” (AUC) approach (Ames 1984; Irvine et al. 1993). The sum of the individual abundance index values from an individual escapement estimation unit (usually a river basin) are then multiplied by a historical “base year” basin-total escapement estimate developed from a mark-recapture study. The resulting value is divided by the base year index of abundance calculated for the same survey reaches that were monitored in the current escapement year, to produce the basin-total escapement estimate for the current year. In the Stillaguamish River basin, Coho Salmon escapement is estimated from 17 index reaches covering 10.7 miles (17.2 km) (Haymes 2008). Historical trends in escapement for the Stillaguamish are provided in ToDo. Known distribution of spawners within the basin is depicted in Figure 4.57 (derived from WDFW’s Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) located at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/).

ToDo: create escapement figures (from post-season FRAM database) Stillaguamish MU escapement estimates, return years x-x.

Figure 4.57: Spawner distribution of Coho Salmon in the Stillaguamish River Basin.

Fishery Monitoring (canned language across all US MUs. Shall we move this?)

A fundamental requirement of abundance-based Coho Salmon management under the is that all fishery impacts on individual be annually monitored with respect to both number of fish caught and . This requires basic reporting of total impacts by fishery and the capacity to estimate each fishery’s -specific impacts. Total fishing mortalities for each must be estimated to enable managers the ability to evaluate the annual relative to the -prescribed impact limits. Assessments of total fishing mortalities for each must include both directed and incidentally-landed catch as well as estimates of non-landed mortalities. These estimates may be obtained through monitoring programs or, in some cases, generated through the use of algorithms built into the Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM). Monitoring programs may involve test fisheries or data collected directly from fishers (e.g., through creel survey interviews, and other fisher-reported techniques, such as log books or fish-tickets). Estimation of non-landed fishing mortality requires annual estimates of encounter rates by fishery and gear.

Management-Unit-specific impacts are generally evaluated using the coast-wide system. This system manages information on the release and recovery of coded-wire tags. The volume of tags recovered for a given will depend on tagging rates, marine survival rates, exploitation and escapement rates, and sampling rates in fisheries and escapements. A recent review of methods (Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup 2008) recommends target sampling rates of 20% for the landed catch and 20% for escapements, with a minimum of 10 tags collected in each fishery or escapement stratum.

Mark selective fisheries have been intensively monitored to collect data to estimate key parameters characterizing MSF fisheries and their impacts on unmarked salmon. Sampling activities include dockside creel sampling, on-water observation, and a Voluntary Trip Report (VTR) system. Data collected from this sampling is used to estimate key parameters necessary to manage fisheries and integrate MSFs in FRAM. These parameters include the following:

• mark rate of the targeted Coho Salmon populations;
• total number of Coho Salmon harvested by mark-status, including an estimate of angler compliance rate with Coho Salmon MSF regulations;
• total number of Coho Salmon released (by size/mark-status);
• the coded-wire tag-stock composition of landed Coho Salmon; and
• total mortality of marked and unmarked Coho Salmon
  Estimates of observed encounter rates or mortality can then be compared to preseason FRAM projections [WDFW_2011].

Post-season estimates are also generated using the Post-Season FRAM Model. Post-season estimates of catch and escapement are entered into the updated FRAM model with the same fishery regulation and effort package used for preseason modeling to generate post-season estimates.

Enhancement

Hatchery production within the Stillaguamish is very small compared to other US . Approximately 39,000 hatchery fish have been released within the basin annually since brood year 1985 (Figure 4.58). Hatchery releases have also been highly variable, from a high of 183,000 fish released from brood year 2007 to a low of 1,000 fish from brood year 2012 (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977). Hatchery production of Coho Salmon in the Stillaguamish is currently limited to a very small WDFW Coop program and the Harvey Creek Hatchery which is operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe, is located 2 miles upstream of the mouth of Harvey/Armstrong Creek, which is located 15.3 miles upstream of the mouth of the Stillaguamish main stem. Harvey Creek releases have averaged 74,000 annually since 2007 when production was raised considerably from previous years.

Two programs are no longer in operation, but contributed to hatchery production over the period of brood years 1983 to 2020. One is the the North Fork/Johnson Creek Hatchery, which was operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe and is located approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the mouth of Johnson Creek located on the North Fork Stillaguamish (Stillaguamish Tribe 2004) (Figure x). The other discontinued Coho Salmon program is the US Navy’s hatchery at Jim Creek. In the past the Stillaguamish Tribe propagated Coho Salmon at the Tribe’s Harvey Creek and Johnson Creek Hatcheries and at a satellite facility at the Navy’s Jim Creek Hatchery. Wild broodstock and the progeny of wild broodstock were captured at the respective sites. Small to moderate numbers of juvenile Coho Salmon produced from a wild broodstock collection program were released annually into selected lower Stillaguamish River tributaries for enhancement purposes since the 1993 brood year. Fish were collected with stick weirs and other approaches from lower river tributaries, then spawned and reared at Jim Creek Hatchery, a small incubation and rearing facility located on a lower river tributary and operated by the Stillaguamish Tribe.

The Stillaguamish Coho Salmon program is an integrated harvest/recovery program with the following goals: 1) providing for a limited selective terminal area fishery for tribal members during years when natural escapement requirements would not normally allow for a tribal fishery; and 2) to provide for a natural origin broodstock program for restoration activities within the basin (Stillaguamish Tribe 2004).

With the advent of technology to automatically remove adipose fins and/or insert using mobile “tagging trailers”, mass marking of hatchery fish was implemented for Coho Salmon in the mid-1990s (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee 1999). Mass marking allows mark selective fisheries (MSFs) for Coho Salmon in which marked hatchery fish can be retained and unmarked wild fish released, resulting in higher harvest rates on hatchery fish than wild fish. Mass marking was implemented for Coho Salmon from the Columbia River, Washington Coast, and Puget Sound beginning with the 1994 brood, including both mass marking (adipose fin clip) the vast majority of hatchery fish and the use of select groups (unclipped fish with ) (Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee 1999). Mass marking of hatchery fish within the Stillaguamish began with the 2004 brood, but has been limited to an average of 8,000 fish annually (Figure 4.58) (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977). There are no programs within the Stillaguamish ; however, groups from the Snohomish are used as a surrogate and are listed in (Table 12.2).

Figure 4.58: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Stillaguamish , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.5.3 Management Performance

Total by the US and Canada and escapement for the Stillaguamish for catch years 1986 to ????. estimates from 1986 to 1997 are based on recoveries and were generated using the Mixed-Stock Model and cohort reconstruction process. A post-season FRAM assessment technique was used to estimate ERs beginning with catch year 1998.

Forecast Evaluation

The forecasts of Stillaguamish Coho Salmon abundance have generally been higher than postseason estimates. During catch years 2004–2010, predicted cohort size (without natural mortality) ranged from a low of 13,400 (2009) to a high of 69,200 (2007) while post-season estimates ranged from 10,808 (2006) to 73,935 (2004) (CoTC 2011) (Table 4 2). Accordingly, the difference between preseason forecasts and post-season estimates varied from -130% (2009) to +77% (2006).

ToDo: SoPanel also wishes to see the numbers (pre, post, % diff from pre by year).

Figure 4.59: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Stillaguamish MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM) defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986–1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Stillaguamish are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are provided ToDo.

ToDo: create table of the list of CWTs used in the base period. I think they are identified in the static file.

During the base period, Coho Salmon production from the Stillaguamish contributed to US and Canadian marine sport and commercial fisheries in southern BC, the northern Washington coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and inner Puget Sound (Haymes 2008). Terminal tribal and non-tribal set and drift-net Coho Salmon net fisheries occur in commercial Marine Management Areas (MMAs) 8A (Port Susan/Possession Sound) and 8D (Tulalip Bay). No directed commercial salmon fisheries typically occur in the Stillaguamish River, though there may periodically be tribal ceremonial and subsistence fisheries. A substantial marine sport fishery occurs in sport MMA 8.2 (Port Susan/Possession Sound), and small freshwater Coho Salmon sport fishery occurs in the Stillaguamish River basin. The terminal fishery co-managers are WDFW, and the Tulalip and Stillaguamish Tribes.

Table 4.22: Stillaguamish MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
KMZ Sport	0.00%	-	-	-	-	0.00%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Newport Sport	0.02%	0.06%	0.04%	-	-	0.13%
Newport Troll	0.03%	0.16%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.23%
Coos Bay Sport	0.01%	0.03%	0.01%	-	-	0.05%
Coos Bay Troll	0.01%	0.03%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.05%
Tillamook Sport	0.01%	0.04%	0.02%	0.01%	-	0.07%
Tillamook Troll	0.01%	0.18%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.24%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.03%	0.05%	0.00%	-	0.08%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.00%	0.08%	0.04%	-	-	0.12%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.11%	0.04%	0.01%	-	0.16%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.04%	0.05%	0.00%	-	0.12%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.09%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.17%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.03%	0.26%	0.12%	0.05%	-	0.46%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.00%	0.05%	0.04%	-	0.11%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.07%	0.16%	0.06%	-	0.33%
WA Area 3 Sport	0.00%	0.05%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.07%
WA Area 4 Sport	0.02%	0.21%	0.22%	0.06%	-	0.51%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.02%	0.29%	0.07%	-	0.39%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.08%	0.36%	0.51%	0.27%	-	1.21%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.04%	0.02%	0.04%	0.05%	0.01%	0.18%
Queets R Net	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.04%	0.00%	0.06%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.10%	0.34%	0.46%	0.29%	1.19%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.05%	0.00%	0.07%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.09%	0.01%	0.12%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.15%	0.42%	0.87%	1.72%	0.28%	3.45%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.04%	0.12%	0.14%	0.57%	0.22%	1.08%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.04%	0.03%	0.08%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.02%	0.04%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 8.1 Sport (Skagit Bay)	-	-	0.04%	-	-	0.04%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.11%	0.08%	0.13%	0.73%	0.25%	1.30%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	2.99%	5.42%	8.41%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	4.71%	8.08%	12.79%
WA Area 8D Non-Treaty Net (Tulalip Bay)	-	-	-	0.26%	1.27%	1.53%
WA Area 8D Treaty Net (Tulalip Bay)	-	-	-	1.98%	7.34%	9.33%
Stillaguamish R Net	-	-	-	-	13.60%	13.60%
WA Area 8.2 Sport (Everett)	0.01%	-	-	2.00%	0.97%	2.98%
Stillaguamish R Sport	-	-	-	-	0.49%	0.49%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	0.03%	0.03%	0.02%	0.05%	-	0.13%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.64%	0.28%	0.92%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.38%	0.16%	0.54%
WA Area 10F-G Treaty Net (Lake Union)	-	-	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	0.03%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.03%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.19%	0.05%	0.24%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WAArea 13 Marine Sport	0.00%	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
Area 9/9A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Area 9/9A Treaty Net (On Res)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.05%	0.06%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.02%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.03%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.02%
BC South Central Troll	0.08%	0.35%	0.07%	0.02%	-	0.52%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.23%	4.02%	1.43%	0.54%	-	6.22%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.43%	9.37%	6.43%	1.28%	-	17.52%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.01%	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.02%
BC Northern Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
BC Central Net	-	0.02%	-	0.00%	-	0.02%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.02%	-	-	0.15%	0.06%	0.23%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.05%	0.02%	0.00%	0.07%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.01%	0.23%	2.80%	1.44%	0.07%	4.55%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Central Sport	-	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.14%	0.41%	0.18%	0.22%	0.05%	1.00%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.02%	0.09%	0.07%	0.00%	-	0.18%
North Georgia Straits Sport	0.08%	0.05%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.16%
South Georgia Straits Sport	0.04%	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.06%

Figure 4.60: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Stillaguamish by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2022. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Total have generally declined since 1986 having averaged 71% during 1986–1993, then gradually falling to an extended period of low (10%) during 2002–2004 (Table 4 3; Figure 4 1). have increased since 2004, averaging 23% during 2005–2009. Up until 1997 the by Canadian fishers averaged 26%, but has since declined to an average of less than 1.0% (Appendix D).

A comparison of by major fisheries during the base period and the most recent five years (2006–2010) is provided in Figure 5 1, while by major fisheries by year since 1986 are given in Appendix D. Individual fishery management areas within Washington State are depicted in Figure Figure 1.4.

Table 4.23: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival (Skykomish), and (ER) of the Stillaguamish Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	66,035	16.6%	58,142	0.4%	11.6%
2005	30,687	9.6%	22,589	0.8%	25.5%
2006	10,804	3.6%	8,548	1.0%	19.8%
2007	51,708	11.8%	38,731	1.5%	23.6%
2008	16,874	3.7%	12,939	0.7%	22.6%
2009	30,871	14.9%	22,180	1.0%	27.2%
2010	16,753	3.5%	15,171	0.5%	9.0%
2011	61,324	16.2%	49,990	1.6%	16.9%
2012	60,518	8.5%	45,155	1.5%	23.9%
2013	78,066	12.9%	60,386	2.0%	20.7%
2014	49,138	5.0%	35,827	2.6%	24.5%
2015	5,455	3.7%	2,915	2.9%	43.6%
2016	15,619	5.0%	13,048	0.8%	15.7%
2017	6,918	1.7%	6,100	1.2%	10.6%
2018	30,885	6.0%	23,937	2.4%	20.1%
2019	16,165	3.9%	12,887	3.4%	16.9%
2020	24,654	5.1%	21,555	1.6%	11.0%
2021	42,702	7.0%	38,176	1.6%	9.0%
2022	59,711	6.6%	53,820	1.8%	8.1%
2023	NA	18.2%	NA	NA	NA

Figure 4.61: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Stillaguamish MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Stillaguamish MU (Need esc goal for Stilly 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

ToDo: Need to add a summary here

Figure 4.62: Stillaguamish post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.63: Stillaguamish pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.24: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Stillaguamish from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	38,290.4	66,035.2
2005	57,116.9	30,686.6
2006	45,330.5	10,804.1
2007	69,683.6	51,708.4
2008	34,639.0	16,873.9
2009	13,465.3	30,871.0
2010	26,060.0	16,753.4
2011	66,919.4	61,323.6
2012	47,746.5	60,517.7
2013	33,241.7	78,066.0
2014	32,659.0	49,138.2
2015	31,452.9	5,454.5
2016	2,775.5	15,618.8
2017	7,638.2	6,917.7
2018	19,041.5	30,884.9
2019	23,918.4	16,164.8
2020	19,531.6	24,653.7
2021	26,985.6	42,702.4
2022	25,052.9	59,710.6
2023	30,412.0	NA
2024	31,029.2	NA

4.2.6 Snohomish

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.6.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Snohomish is one of the US Inside and includes all accessible waters of the Snohomish River Basin, Washington State, including its major tributaries, the Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers.

The Snohomish River basin is 1,780 mi² [4,610 km²] in size, draining the Cascade Mountains to the east of Everett and Seattle, and entering Puget Sound at Everett. The has extensive moderate to high quality juvenile Coho Salmon spawning and rearing habitat, due the large number of low gradient tributaries. The main tributaries directly draining the Cascades tend to have two periods of peak flow, first during winter flood events and the second during peak snow runoff in spring and early summer. The smaller tributaries are largely rain-fed, and have peak flows during the winter rain season.

Recreational, environmental conservation, and commercial forest activities are prevalent in the mid and upper basin. The lower and mid-basin areas have significant habitat impacts from agricultural and residential/commercial development in the floodplain and surrounding uplands, and flood control activities. Major urban centers in the include Everett, Snohomish, and Monroe, with numerous smaller residentially oriented communities located through the basin.

There is only one major dam located in the , Spada Reservoir at RM 16.2 [KM 26] on Sultan River, with a diversion dam located at RM 9.7 [KM 16] on the Sultan River that blocks upstream passage of anadromous fish past this point. A significant increase in available natural Coho Salmon production habitat in the Snohomish occurred in 1958 when the Sunset Falls Fishway became operational and 362 mi² [938 km²] of habitat above a large natural waterfall system was opened to anadromous salmonid use (WDF 1958).

All wild Coho Salmon that originate from the Snohomish basin constitute a single and are managed as a single stock. Snohomish River Coho Salmon belong to the larger Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU; (Weitkamp et al. 1995)). This ESU is currently a species of concern under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2009).

4.2.6.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the Comprehensive Coho Salmon Management Plan (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998), Snohomish River wild Coho Salmon is the primary (key) and hatchery production is an auxiliary (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998). Under this plan, primary are controlling units in the sense that predefined management actions that will be undertaken under specified abundance conditions, auxiliary are those managed to meet or exceed a minimum escapement, and secondary units are passively managed in mixed stock fisheries. Therefore, Snohomish River Coho Salmon are managed for natural (wild) production.

Snohomish Coho Salmon are a primary for Puget Sound under the (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011). Other primary in this region are eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca, Hood Canal, Skagit, Stillaguamish, and South Puget Sound (hatchery) Coho Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2011). The ’s conservation objectives for these are based on the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, which includes management objectives and long-term goals for these stocks as developed by representatives from federal, state, and tribal agencies.

In Puget Sound, conservation objectives for specific stocks are based on either maximum sustainable production for stocks managed primarily for natural production or on hatchery escapement needs for stocks managed for artificial production. The original conservation objectives were developed by a State/Tribal Management Plan Development Team following the Boldt Decision (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) with the goal for natural spawning stocks defined as “the adult spawning population that will, on the average, maximize biomass of juvenile outmigrants subsequent to incubation and freshwater rearing under average environmental conditions”. The method used to develop the objectives was based on assessment of the quantity and quality of rearing habitat and the number of adult spawners required to fully seed the habitat. Some objectives have subsequently been modified by the US District Court Fisheries Advisory Board and later determinations of the WDFW/Tribal Technical Committee. However, annual natural management objectives may vary from the fisheries management plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of US versus Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) and subsequent US District Court orders.

In 2009, the adopted annual management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon as recommended by WDFW and tribal co-managers under provisions of US versus Washington. The annual objectives were based on the categorical status and associated maximum limits. The formally adopted management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon in November 2009, which were consistent with objectives, and will replace the longstanding FMP spawning escapement objectives in 2010.

The current / ceilings for the Snohomish natural Coho Salmon population are provided here:

Table 4.25: Current Snohomish ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 51,668	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	51,668 – 125,000	21% – 40%
Abundant/Normal	> 125,000	41% – 60%

Queets River natural Coho Salmon, Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon, and Snohomish River natural Coho Salmon were found to meet the criteria for being classified as overfished in the PFMC Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, released in February 2018. Snohomish natural Coho Salmon now meet the criteria for rebuilt status based on the most recent three-year geometric mean of escapement estimates (2019-2021) (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023a).

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Like the Stillaguamish , the Snohomish primarily relies on the following two indicator stocks releases in the Snohomish : Bernie Gobin Hatchery (Tulalip Creek) and Wallace River Hatchery (Skykomish) (Joint Coho Technical Committee 2013). Approximately 45,000 coded wire tagged and clipped fish have been released from Wallace River Hatchery since brood year 1983. A double index tag program of 45,000 tagged and unclipped fish was implemented at this hatchery beginning with brood year 1996. Approximately 48,000 tagged fish have been released annually from Bernie Gobin Hatchery, where all broods but 1997 and 1998 were clipped and tagged. Wild stock coded-wire tagging programs have been limited within the basin. A smolt trapping study conducted by the Stillaguamish Tribe on brood years 1984–87 is the only source of wild tagging data from the Stillaguamish Watershed (Figure 4 4).

Is this still true???? –> There are no direct estimates of marine survival or exploitation for this due to the limited numbers of released from the enhancement projects, and lack of formal escapement accounting for the returning tagged Coho Salmon. Tagged hatchery and wild fish released in the Snohomish are used as surrogates for the Stillaguamish .

add text for recoveries? Make sure to include that this could include clipped and unclipped fish

Figure 4.64: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Snohomish MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.65: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Snohomish MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Since 1996, WDFW and tribal biologists have developed forecasts of wild Coho Salmon run size for all primary and most secondary in Puget Sound and the Washington coast (Zimmerman 2013). These annual forecasts are described in the ’s Preseason Forecast I document each February [e.g., Pacific Fishery Management Council (2013); www.pcouncil.org]. These forecasts rely on estimates of wild Coho Salmon production (i.e., smolts) paired with estimates of marine survival. Wild Coho Salmon production estimates for each of the primary and secondary in Puget Sound were derived from results of juvenile trapping studies conducted in the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Green, Nisqually, and Deschutes rivers as well as in tributaries to Lake Washington and Hood Canal. Analysis of these long-term data sets have demonstrated that wild Coho Salmon smolt production is limited by a combination of factors including seeding levels (i.e., escapement), environmental effects (flows, marine derived nutrients), and habitat degradation (Zimmerman 2012).

Estimates of wild Coho Salmon production in the Snohomish Basin are based on catch of wild Coho Salmon in a juvenile trapping program on the Skykomish River. Between 1978 and 1986, WDFW operated a juvenile trap below Sunset Falls on the South Fork Skykomish River (Zimmerman 2011). Coho Salmon production estimates were generated with a back-calculation method (Petersen-Chapman estimator). For a given brood year, the back-calculation applied the incidence of coded-wire tag returns to the Sunset Falls adult trap to the number of tagged Coho Salmon smolts released from the juvenile trap. The back-calculation method accounts for South Fork Skykomish Coho Salmon production above and below the trap.

Between 1978 and 1983, average production was 276,000 smolts (range = 212,000 to 354,000 smolts) and inter annual variation in smolt production was not correlated with spawner abundance. Between 1982 and 1984 (corresponding to the 1984 to 1986 outmigration), escapement was experimentally reduced in order to determine whether smolt production could be limited by lower escapements. For these three years, limited escapement (1,000 to 3,000 females) reduced Coho Salmon production to an average of 198,000 smolts. A basin-wide estimate for these years was derived by expanding average Coho Salmon production in the South Fork Skykomish by 20.7%, the portion of the Snohomish system’s drainage area represented by the South Fork Skykomish sub-basin. With this method, average Coho Salmon production for the Snohomish Basin is 1,333,000 smolts (Seiler 1996). This estimate was subsequently reduced to 1,000,000 smolts to account for the portions of the watershed that are not accessible to anadromous fish (i.e., 450 mi² or 26%; Seiler 1999).

Estimated smolt production has averaged approximately 1.27 million smolts annually during 1995–2022. In more recent years, estimated smolt production has been quite consistent in the Snohomish , averaging approximately 1,100,000 smolts annually during 2000–2010 (Figure 4.66). Smolt production has varied from a low of 720,000 in 2008 to a high of 2,200,000 in 2014, exceeding 1 million smolts in 21 of the last 28 years.

Figure 4.66: Estimated number of Snohomish MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1990 through 2022

Figure 4.67: Estimated marine survival rates for Snohomish River Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Snohomish abundance forecast is 71,600, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Moderate” under the 2019 and “Low” under the . This results in an allowable total of no more than 40%.

The Snohomish MU forecast is based on 2023 out-migrant smolts estimated from a mark-recapture estimate of smolt abundance from two smolt traps, one operated on the Skykomish River (river mile 26.5) and the second on the Snoqualmie River (river mile 12.2). Smolt trap estimates for the Skykomish and Snoqualmie rivers are summed and further expanded for rearing downstream of the trap locations in the Snohomish River. A marine survival rate of 4.6% was applied to the total smolt production estimate for the Snohomish watershed of 1,557,000 smolts (Litz 2024). The resulting forecast was rounded to the nearest hundred to account for co-manager agreed-to precision.

Escapement Monitoring

Known distribution of spawners within the basin is depicted in Figure 4.68 (derived from WDFW’s Salmonid Stock Inventory (SaSI) located at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/fisheries/sasi/).

ToDo: create escapement figures (from post-season FRAM database) Snohomish MU escapement estimates, return years x-x.

Figure 4.68: Spawner distribution of Coho Salmon in the Snohomish River Basin.

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

Hatchery production within the Snohomish is much larger than the Skagit and Stillaguamish , averaging 1.5 million Coho Salmon released annually over brood years 1983 to 2020. Most of the production is from the Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Hatchery (822,000 annually; 54% of total hatchery releases) and the Wallace River Hatchery (581,000 annually; 38% of total hatchery releases), both of which are located within the Snohomish Basin (Figure 4.68). The Bernie Kai-Kai Gobin Hatchery opened in 1983 and is located at the juncture of the east and west Forks of Tulalip Creek and is operated by the Tulalip Tribes (Tulalip Tribes 2004). This Coho Salmon program is an isolated program and the purpose of this program is to provide Coho salmon for harvest by Tulalip Tribal members in a terminal area fishery. Production from this program is also available for harvest by the non- Indian sport fishery and contributes to other directed and incidental harvest of Coho Salmon in other preterminal fisheries. The Wallace River Hatchery is located at RM 4 on the Wallace River (07.0940) at the confluence with May Creek (07.0943) and is operated by WDFW (WDFW 2003). Salmonids have been reared at the Wallace River site since 1907. The current Wallace River Hatchery Coho Salmon program is an integrated program with the goal of providing fish for harvest opportunity (WDFW 2003). Adults are collected at the following two collection facilities: 1) an instream trap located on May Creek; and 2) with the use of a weir placed across the Wallace River from June until October 1st.

Mass marking within the began with the 1996 brood and has averaged 738,000 marked fish released annually through brood 2020.

Figure 4.69: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Snohomish , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.6.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

ToDo: SoPanel also wishes to see the numbers (pre, post, % diff from pre by year).

Figure 4.70: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Snohomish MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Snohomish are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.26: Snohomish MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
KMZ Sport	0.00%	-	-	-	-	0.00%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
Newport Sport	0.02%	0.06%	0.04%	-	-	0.13%
Newport Troll	0.03%	0.16%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.23%
Coos Bay Sport	0.01%	0.03%	0.01%	-	-	0.05%
Coos Bay Troll	0.01%	0.03%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.05%
Tillamook Sport	0.01%	0.04%	0.02%	0.01%	-	0.08%
Tillamook Troll	0.01%	0.18%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.24%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.03%	0.05%	0.00%	-	0.08%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.00%	0.08%	0.04%	-	-	0.12%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.11%	0.04%	0.01%	-	0.16%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.04%	0.05%	0.00%	-	0.12%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.09%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.17%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.03%	0.26%	0.12%	0.05%	-	0.46%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.00%	0.05%	0.04%	-	0.11%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.07%	0.16%	0.06%	-	0.33%
WA Area 3 Sport	0.00%	0.05%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.07%
WA Area 4 Sport	0.02%	0.21%	0.22%	0.06%	-	0.51%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.02%	0.29%	0.07%	-	0.39%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.08%	0.36%	0.51%	0.27%	-	1.22%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.04%	0.02%	0.04%	0.05%	0.01%	0.18%
Queets R Net	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.04%	0.00%	0.06%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.10%	0.34%	0.46%	0.30%	1.20%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.05%	0.00%	0.07%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.09%	0.01%	0.12%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.15%	0.42%	0.88%	1.72%	0.29%	3.45%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.04%	0.12%	0.14%	0.57%	0.22%	1.09%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.04%	0.03%	0.08%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.02%	0.04%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 8.1 Sport (Skagit Bay)	-	-	0.04%	-	-	0.04%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.11%	0.08%	0.13%	0.74%	0.25%	1.30%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	3.37%	5.99%	9.36%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	5.31%	8.93%	14.24%
WA Area 8D Non-Treaty Net (Tulalip Bay)	-	-	-	0.26%	1.28%	1.54%
WA Area 8D Treaty Net (Tulalip Bay)	-	-	-	1.98%	7.36%	9.34%
Snohomish R Net	-	-	-	-	0.32%	0.32%
WA Area 8.2 Sport (Everett)	0.01%	-	-	2.36%	1.19%	3.56%
Snohomish R Sport	-	-	-	-	0.63%	0.63%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	0.03%	0.03%	0.02%	0.05%	-	0.13%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.64%	0.28%	0.93%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.38%	0.17%	0.54%
WA Area 10F-G Treaty Net (Lake Union)	-	-	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	0.03%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.03%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.19%	0.05%	0.25%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WAArea 13 Marine Sport	0.00%	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
Area 9/9A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Area 9/9A Treaty Net (On Res)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.05%	0.06%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.02%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.03%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.03%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.02%
BC South Central Troll	0.08%	0.35%	0.07%	0.02%	-	0.52%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.23%	4.02%	1.43%	0.54%	-	6.23%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.44%	9.38%	6.44%	1.28%	-	17.54%
Georgia Straits Troll	0.01%	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.00%	-	0.02%
BC Northern Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
BC Central Net	-	0.02%	-	0.00%	-	0.02%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.03%	-	-	0.15%	0.06%	0.23%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.05%	0.02%	0.00%	0.07%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.01%	0.23%	2.81%	1.44%	0.07%	4.56%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Central Sport	-	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.14%	0.41%	0.18%	0.22%	0.06%	1.00%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.02%	0.09%	0.07%	0.00%	-	0.18%
North Georgia Straits Sport	0.08%	0.05%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.16%
South Georgia Straits Sport	0.04%	0.02%	0.00%	0.01%	-	0.06%

Figure 4.71: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Snohomish by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2022. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.27: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival (Snohomish), and (ER) of the Snohomish Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	289,505	12.8%	252,787	0.4%	12.3%
2005	133,924	3.1%	104,149	0.8%	21.4%
2006	94,754	12.8%	75,626	1.0%	19.2%
2007	157,393	6.7%	117,737	1.5%	23.7%
2008	49,412	20.8%	35,816	0.7%	26.8%
2009	134,407	26.5%	98,950	1.0%	25.4%
2010	54,375	6.3%	49,101	0.5%	9.2%
2011	137,411	8.8%	111,376	1.6%	17.3%
2012	175,650	11.3%	130,639	1.5%	24.1%
2013	175,980	9.9%	125,872	2.0%	26.5%
2014	66,635	3.9%	46,243	2.6%	28.0%
2015	27,593	1.5%	12,808	2.9%	50.7%
2016	54,137	10.6%	44,144	0.8%	17.7%
2017	23,190	2.4%	18,196	1.2%	20.3%
2018	77,581	6.9%	58,129	2.4%	22.6%
2019	48,671	4.7%	40,312	3.4%	13.8%
2020	47,717	6.1%	42,674	1.6%	9.0%
2021	109,873	NA	97,523	1.6%	9.6%
2022	93,201	NA	85,683	1.8%	6.3%

Figure 4.72: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Snohomish MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Snohomish MU (Need esc goal for Snohomish 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

ToDo: Need to add a summary here

Figure 4.73: Snohomish post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.74: Snohomish pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.28: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Snohomish from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	193,583.4	289,504.7
2005	243,394.7	133,924.0
2006	140,544.4	94,754.1
2007	99,599.0	157,393.4
2008	108,640.6	49,412.1
2009	67,334.6	134,406.7
2010	100,035.1	54,375.2
2011	180,881.9	137,410.9
2012	109,559.7	175,649.8
2013	164,558.6	175,980.3
2014	150,992.6	66,634.7
2015	152,515.5	27,592.7
2016	16,774.1	54,137.3
2017	107,587.7	23,190.4
2018	66,259.7	77,580.7
2019	62,869.9	48,671.5
2020	39,157.7	47,716.7
2021	60,371.2	109,873.2
2022	64,621.0	93,201.4
2023	76,963.1	NA
2024	72,130.4	NA

4.2.7 Hood Canal

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.7.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Hood Canal is one of the US Inside and includes all waters south and east of a line from Olele Point to Foulweather Bluff [WDFW_and_WWTIT_1994] (Figure 4.75). This consists of the following nine stocks: Northeast Hood Canal, Dewatto, Southeast Hood Canal, Skokomish, Southwest Hood Canal, Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, Dosewallips, and Quilcene/Dabob Bays (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998). Coho Salmon utilize almost all of the accessible tributaries draining into Hood Canal. Hood Canal Coho Salmon belong to the larger Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia Coho Salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU; (Weitkamp et al. 1995). This ESU is currently a species of concern under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA Fisheries 2009).

Figure 4.75: Hood Canal MU Watershed

TODO: add newest hatcheries to map (salwater park and north fork salmon)

Hood Canal is a 61 mile long fish hook-shaped fjord, bordered on the west by the heavily forested Olympic Mountains and the low rolling hills of the Kitsap Peninsula border it on the east. It is 1.2 to 2.5 miles (2 to 4 km) wide, and up to 570 feet (175 meters) deep in the main body of the canal. The depth at the northern entrance to the canal is 165 to 245 feet (50 to 75 meters), and shallows to 130 feet (40 meters) or less in the “arm” on the southern end of Hood Canal. The freshwater habitat of this consists of numerous small to medium-sized river basins entering Hood Canal.

Watersheds flowing into Hood Canal from the west, draining out of the Olympic Mountains, are high gradient rivers with limited access to anadromous fish due to natural barriers. They consist of river systems from the Skokomish River at the southwest corner northward to the Big Quilcene River. The Skokomish River, including the South and North forks, is the largest watershed. The other major watersheds that flow into the canal from the west include the Hamma Hamma, Duckabush, and Dosewallips rivers. These systems drain the eastern slopes of the Olympic Mountain Range, are of consistently higher gradient, and receive snowmelt runoff in addition to rain-fed discharge. The Duckabush and Dosewallips rivers also have some glacial input. Most tributaries entering the west side of Hood Canal are not highly productive for natural Coho Salmon due to the high average gradients, with the exception of some tributaries in the Skokomish River drainage.

Watersheds flowing into Hood Canal from the east, off the Kitsap Peninsula, are lower gradient, smaller systems. These river systems include the Union, Dewatto, and Tahuya rivers. The Kitsap Peninsula tributaries have some of the highest quality Coho Salmon spawning and rearing habitat in the , due to the numerous low gradient tributaries and limited urban development in most of this area.

Much of the land base in the region is managed for commercial timber production, though the upper reaches of the longer western Hood Canal tributaries originate in Olympic National Park. There are several small to moderate-sized communities scattered through the . Residential and commercial development rates are increasing rapidly on the Kitsap Peninsula, with the fastest growth around the town of Belfair on the southeastern end of the Hood Canal arm and along the northeast side of Hood Canal northwest of Bremerton.

There have been severe water quality issues in Hood Canal in recent years due to seasonally low dissolved oxygen (DO) problems. It is thought that the DO problem is associated with the shallow sill at the northern end that prevents full tidal exchange of the deep water layer, and organic pollutant inputs from human activities have exacerbated the periodic anoxic conditions in the sub-surface water layers in recent years (Allen 2007). It is currently unknown what the implications of this problem are for the future productivity of salmon populations in the region.

A number of salmon hatchery facilities exist within the Hood Canal and listed below are the Coho Salmon programs in the canal (Figure 4.75).

• The Quilcene National Fish Hatchery (QNFH) is located in the northwestern section of Hood Canal on the Big Quilcene River at RM 3 [KM 4.8] from the estuary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). This facility was constructed in 1911 and is operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Coho Salmon have been raised continuously since 1911, presumably begun with local Quilcene River broodstock. It is an integrated harvest program with the goal of providing adult Coho Salmon for harvest (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999). Current Coho Salmon annual production goals include 400,000 smolts (24,000 lbs) to be released on-station, 200,000 pre-smolts (9,050 lbs at transfer) to be transferred to the Skokomish Tribal net pen in Quilcene Bay, and 450,000 eyed eggs to be transferred to George Adams Hatchery (which are transferred later to the Port Gamble Bay Net Pens) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The QNFH stock is a somewhat early returning population compared to most other hatchery and wild populations in the Puget Sound region.

• George Adams Hatchery is operated by WDFW and is located on Purdy Creek, a tributary to the lower Skokomish River in southwestern Hood Canal (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 2003c). The hatchery was constructed in 1960 and expanded in 1977. The purpose of the Coho Salmon program at George Adams is to augment harvest opportunities and, in part, mitigate for reduced natural production in the Skokomish system, primarily caused by hydroelectric dams on the North Fork Skokomish River. The program is intended to be an isolated harvest program; however, an unknown number of adults stray into the spawning grounds of the Skokomish River. Current Coho Salmon production goal is 500,000 yearlings released annually into Purdy Creek. In addition to WDFW production at George Adams, the hatchery receives 450,000 eyed eggs from the QNFH and rears the fish for eventual transfer to the Port Gamble Bay Net Pens.

• The WDFW Hoodsport Hatchery, located on the southwestern side of Hood Canal north of the Skokomish River, discontinued Coho Salmon production after the 1993 brood.

• The Quilcene Net Pens are anchored at the southeast end of Quilcene Bay near Fisherman’s Point (commercial Marine Management Area [MMA] 12A), in northwestern Hood Canal (Seiler et al. 2003). This program is operated by the Skokomish Tribe and began releasing Coho Salmon in 1986. Eggs are collected from QNFH broodstock, incubated and hatched, and the fry are reared to smolts in the same hatchery before transfer to the Quilcene Bay Net Pens. The net pens receive the Coho Salmon smolts in January and the fish are reared until release in April or May. The program is intended to be an isolated harvest program and the production goal is to release 200,000 Coho Salmon smolts annually. Due to spring algal blooms, Coho Salmon have not been reared and released from the Net Pens since BY 2013. Instead, these fish have been kept at Quilcene NFH and released into the Big Quilcene River.

• Little Boston Hatchery is a fall Chum Salmon hatchery program located at the mouth of Little Boston Creek on Port Gamble Bay and is operated by the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. The hatchery is an isolated harvest program to support local fall Chum Salmon fishing opportunities. This program enhances the stability and viability of treaty and non-treaty fisheries. Up to 1300 adult Chum Salmon are collected each fall in order to release 950,000 fry during the following spring.

• The Port Gamble Net Pens are anchored at the northern end of Port Gamble Bay (commercial MMA 9A) in northern Hood Canal. This is a cooperative effort with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The net pens are operated by the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe and began releasing Coho Salmon smolts in 1981 (Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe 2003). Eggs are collected from QNFH broodstock and transferred to George Adams Hatchery where they are hatched and the fry are reared to smolts before transfer to the Port Gamble Net Pens. The Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe operates and maintains the net pens, and fish food is provided by WDFW. Around 425,000 yearling Coho salmon are released each year after April 15. The program is intended to be an isolated harvest program and the production goal is to release 400,000 Coho Salmon smolts annually. update new release goals due to SRKW increases here

• The newest hatcheries within the Canal include Saltwater Park Sockeye Hatchery and the North Fork Salmon Hatchery.

Figure 4.76: Saltwater park hatchery stuff

Both of these programs are operated through a partnership between the Skokomish Tribe and Tacoma Power. The Saltwater Park Sockeye Hatchery is located next to the powerhouse on the shores of Hood Canal and have raised and released only Sockeye Salmon, beginning with BY 2016 fish. Spring Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon, and steelhead are raised and released from the North Fork Salmon Hatchery which is located on the southern shore of Lake Kokanee. Coho Salmon have been released from this hatchery beginning with BY 2013.

4.2.7.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the Comprehensive Coho Management Plan (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998), mainstem Hood Canal wild Coho Salmon is the primary (key) and other aggregate (Area 9A [Port Gamble Net Pens and Area 9A wild], Area 12A [Area 12A wild, Quilcene NFH, Quilcene Bay net pens], and George Adams Hatchery) production are auxiliary (Comprehensive Coho Workgroup 1998). Under this plan, primary are controlling units in the sense that predefined management actions will be undertaken under specified abundance conditions, auxiliary are those managed to meet or exceed a minimum escapement, and secondary units are passively managed in mixed stock fisheries. Therefore, Hood Canal CCoho Salmonoho are managed for natural production.

Hood Canal Coho Salmon are also a primary for Puget Sound under the (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013). Other primary in this region are eastern Juan de Fuca, Stillaguamish, Skagit, Snohomish, and South Puget Sound (hatchery) Coho Salmon. The ’s conservation objectives for these were based on the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, which defined management objectives and long-term goals for these stocks as developed by representatives from Federal, state, and tribal agencies. Conservation objectives for specific stocks were based on either maximum sustainable production for stocks managed primarily for natural production or on hatchery escapement needs for stocks managed for artificial production. The original conservation objectives were developed by a State/Tribal Management Plan Development Team following the Boldt Decision (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974 ) with the goal for natural spawning stocks defined as “the adult spawning population that will, on the average, maximize biomass of juvenile outmigrants subsequent to incubation and freshwater rearing under average environmental conditions.” The method used to develop the objectives was based on assessment of the quantity and quality of rearing habitat and the number of adult spawners required to fully seed the habitat. Some objectives have subsequently been modified by the US District Court Fisheries Advisory Board and later determinations of the WDFW/Tribal Technical Committee. However, annual natural management objectives may vary from the FMP conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of US versus Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974 ) and subsequent US District Court orders.

In 2009, the adopted annual management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon as recommended by WDFW and tribal co-managers under provisions of US versus Washington. The annual objectives were based on the categorical status and associated maximum limits. The formally adopted ER management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon in November 2009, which were consistent with objectives, and in 2010 it replaced the longstanding FMP spawning escapement objectives.

The current / ceilings for the Hood Canal natural Coho Salmon population are provided in the table below. The current corresponding ocean abundance breakpoints are 19,545 and 41,000 adult Coho Salmon (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013). Prior to adoption of -based management in domestic and international management processes, natural origin Hood Canal Coho Salmon were managed for a fixed escapement goal of 21,500, which was derived by use of a maximum freshwater juvenile carrying capacity model (Zillges 1977).

Table 4.29: Current Hood Canal ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 19,546	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	19,546 – 41,000	21% – 45%
Abundant/Normal	> 41,000	46% – 65%

Once a preseason forecast of ocean age-3 adult Coho Salmon has been made, the forecast abundance is assessed relative to the prescribe abundance breakpoints; from these breakpoints, the status is assigned. For the Hood Canal , forecast abundances at or below 19,545 have “low” () or “critical” () status, those between 19,545 and 41,000 are “moderate” () or “low” () status, and those above 41,000 are “abundant” () or “normal” () status (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2013).

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

The Hood Canal indicator programs include a wild fish indicator program at Big Beef Creek amd numerous hatchery tagging programs. Wild Coho Salmon survival and are monitored by natural-origin marked Coho Salmon from the WDFW Big Beef Creek Research Station. All upstream migrating adults and downstream migrating juveniles are enumerated, a portion of the out-migrants coded-wire tagged, and a portion of the returning adults sampled for recoveries (Volkhardt et al. 2007). An average of 26,000 wild Coho Salmon were coded-wire tagged and released for brood years years 1983-2020, annually (Figure 4.77) (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977). Released fish were adipose fin clipped brood years 1983-1995 and 1997. All other recent years the Coho Salmon have been released unclipped. Harvest rates may be higher for Big Beef Creek-origin Coho Salmon than Hood Canal natural Coho Salmon in aggregate. This is due to the presence of intensive tribal net fisheries in the marine waters adjacent to Big Beef Creek that may exploit Coho Salmon staging for entry to Big Beef Creek and adjacent streams at a higher rate than the other natural populations in the basin.

Figure 4.77: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Hood Canal MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

In addition to wild stock tagging at Big Beef Creek, coded-wire-tag recovery-based estimates of survival rates are available for the Port Gamble Net Pens, Quilcene Bay Net Pens, Quilcene NFH, and George Adams Hatchery programs. Since brood year 1983, approximately 188,000 tagged and clipped Coho Salmon have been release annually from these programs combined. programs ( groups are marked and unmarked pairs of Coho Salmon) began with brood 1995 at George Adams, with brood 1996 at Quilene National Fish Hatchery, and were implemented for a few years at Quilcene Net Pens and Port Gamble Net Pens. The values for the non-adipose fin clipped and tagged Coho Salmon from these programs provide a surrogate measure of exploitation for natural-origin Coho Salmon from this region, particularly for non-terminal fisheries. Terminal harvest rates on these stocks are more intensive than for Hood Canal natural Coho Salmon in aggregate because of the intensive extreme terminal area fisheries targeted at returns to these programs. Approximately 46,000 tagged and unclipped Coho Salmon have been released annually from George Adams since brood 1995. The program at Quilcene has been an average annual release size of 41,000 for broods 1996 through 2010. In attempt to improve survival and data for the hatchery stock, the number of tagged fish released was increased beginning with brood 2011 to approximately 75,000 for each component of the program. The groups released for the Hood Canal are provided in table Table 12.3 (ToDo –> cross reference).

Figure 4.78: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Hood Canal MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

estimates are available for the Quilcene NFH and George Adams Hatchery programs. Coho Salmon broodstock are not collected at the net pen release sites, so there is no complete accounting of escapement of coded-wire-tagged Coho Salmon originating from these facilities, and cannot be directly calculated for these programs. The intensive fisheries adjacent to the Quilcene Bay and Port Gamble net pens are designed to harvest the majority of available Coho Salmon retuning to these areas, so the sum of all tag recoveries in fisheries and escapement are considered to provide reasonable relative estimates of marine survival for these programs, albeit with some negative bias.

Forecast Methods

Since 1996, WDFW and tribal biologists have developed forecasts of wild Coho Salmon run size for all primary and most secondary in Puget Sound and the Washington coast (Zimmerman 2013). These annual forecasts are described in the ’s Preseason Forecast I document available each February [Pacific Fishery Management Council (2013); www.pcouncil.org]. These forecasts rely on estimates of wild Coho Salmon production (i.e., smolts) paired with estimates of marine survival. Wild Coho Salmon production estimates for each of the primary and secondary in Puget Sound were derived from results of juvenile trapping studies conducted in the Skagit, Stillaguamish, Snohomish, Green, Nisqually, East Kitsap, and Deschutes rivers as well as in tributaries to Lake Washington and Hood Canal. Analyses of these long-term data sets have demonstrated that wild Coho Salmon smolt production is limited by a combination of factors including seeding levels (i.e., escapement), environmental effects (flows, marine derived nutrients), and habitat degradation (Zimmerman 2013).

For Hood Canal , natural smolt production and adult escapements are intensively monitored by WDFW at the Big Beef Creek Research Station and three nearby tributaries that enter Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula northeast of Bremerton. A permanent WDFW upstream/downstream migrant weir is located on Big Beef Creek just upstream of the estuary, and juvenile fence traps are installed annually on Little Anderson, Seabeck, and Stavis creeks, which are smaller adjacent tributaries (WRIAs 15.0377, 15.0400, and 15.0404).

Production is not directly measured in all Hood Canal tributaries; therefore estimates are based on an expansion of the measured production. Three approaches have been used to expand measured production at Big Beef Creek and neighboring tributaries to a Hood Canal estimate (Zimmerman 2012). The first approach assumes that Coho Salmon production from four tributaries (Little Anderson, Big Beef, Seabeck, and Stavis creeks) is 5.9% that of the entire Hood Canal (Zillges 1977). A subsequent review by the Hood Canal Joint Technical Committee (HCJTC) estimated that Coho Salmon production from these same four tributaries to be 7.6% that of Hood Canal (Hood Canal Joint Technical Committee 1994). A third approach (Volkhardt and Seiler 2001), based on the HCJTC forecast review in summer of 2001, estimated that Coho Salmon production from Big Beef Creek was 4.56% that of Hood Canal.

Estimated smolt production in the Hood Canal averaged 538,000 smolts annually during 1995 to 2022. Smolt production has varied from a low of 67,000 in 2021 to a high of 995,000 in 2009 (Table 4.1).

Figure 4.79: Estimated number of Hood Canal MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1990 through 2022

Table 4.30: Hood Canal natural smolt production, 1995-2012 out-migration years (Zimmerman 2012, 2013).

Out-migration Year	Smolt Production
1995	392,000
1996	511,000
1997	672,000
1998	551,000
1999	429,000
2000	928,000
2001	479,000
2002	534,000
2003	791,000
2004	550,000
2005	707,000
2006	846,000
2007	626,875
2008	601,293
2009	995,000
2010	535,000
2011	804,000
2012	323,000
2013	490,000
2014	889,000
2015	163,000
2016	386,000
2017	359,000
2018	386,000
2019	430,000
2020	320,000
2021	67,000
2022	295,000

Marine survival rates of wild Coho Salmon stocks have been measured using wild indicator stocks in four geographic regions of Puget Sound: Big Beef Creek, Deschutes River, South Fork Skykomish River, and Baker River (Zimmerman 2013). These populations are assumed to be representative of the different Puget Sound regions. Marine survival of Big Beef Coho Salmon (Hood Canal) was correlated with jack return rates. Between 1977 and 1996, the ratio of adult to jack return rates averaged 11.3 (range = 6 to 18) and was remarkably consistent among years. During these years, 78% of the variation in age-3 Coho Salmon marine survival could be predicted from jack return rates. Over the past decade, the ratio of adult to jack returns has increased (average = 26.8). During this period, jack return rates explain 70% of the variation in marine survival of Big Beef Coho Salmon.

Jack returns represent the composite of variables impacting early survival in the marine environment assuming that early marine survival remains the driver of overall return rates. While this assumption has been moderately supported by results from the WSPE monitoring stations, there are years when jack returns have had very poor predictive capacity and periods when the ratio of jack to adult returns change without a clear explanation. In the preparation for developing the adult forecast, this uncertainty was further addressed by examining the relationships between major ocean indicators (i.e., PDO, upwelling, spring transition) and marine survival. When significant correlations existed, predicted age-3 marine survival was compared between the ocean indicator and jack return approach.

Marine survival for the indicator stock for the Hood Canal , Big Beef Creek, has averaged 15% during return years 1978-2012 (broods 1975-2009), with a high of 32% in 1986 and a low of 2% in 2010 (Figure 4.80). Marine survival of broods 1975-2002 averaged 17%, while marine survival of broods 2003-2009 averaged only 6.3%. Like other Puget Sound indicators, the long term trend in marine survival is downwards although marine survivals exceeding 20% during the period from 2002 to 2004 is encouraging.

Figure 4.80: Estimated marine survival rates for Big Beef Creek Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Hood Canal abundance forecast is 36,541, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Moderate” under the 2019 and “Low” under the . This results in an allowable total of no more than 45%.

This forecast is based on a linear regression model that related the return of tagged natural jack Coho Salmon at Big Beef Creek to Hood Canal December age-2 recruits in the subsequent run year, using brood years 1983–1998 and 2002–2019. This forecast was then converted to abundance. The 1999–2001 broods were excluded because of the unusually high recruit-per-tagged jack ratio, which is not expected to occur this year. For 2024, as was done since 2016, the co-managers agreed to apply a conservative bias correction for forecasting natural Coho Salmon in Hood Canal.

Escapement Monitoring

The method used for estimating natural Coho Salmon escapements in this is the Base-Year Index approach (Haymes 2008). This approach is used to estimate annual Coho Salmon escapements to most of the major river basins and geographically associated aggregations of smaller independent tributaries in the Puget Sound region, exclusive of the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The Base-Year Index approach was adopted for estimating Coho escapements in this region because the distribution of Coho Salmon spawners is geographically broad in each river basin and an approach is required that is not dependent on the direct census of a large portion of the total spawning habitat, and that can use serial live and/or dead fish observations instead of spawning redd enumeration because the multiple species overlap and/or high spawning densities often make Coho Salmon redd enumeration impractical.

The Base-Year Index method allows expansion of an annual index of abundance developed from serial field counts of live or dead salmon, collected in a relatively small fraction of the total freshwater habitat to an estimate of basin or region-total escapement. A series of point counts of live Coho Salmon abundance are made in several fixed-location survey reaches, distributed throughout each major river basin or region. At the end of the spawning season an abundance index is developed for each index survey reach using the “area under the curve” (AUC) approach (Ames 1984; Irvine et al. 1993). The sum of the individual abundance index values from an individual escapement estimation unit (usually a river basin) are then multiplied by a historical “base year” basin-total escapement estimate developed from a mark-recapture study. The resulting value is divided by the base year index of abundance calculated for the same survey reaches that were monitored in the current escapement year, to produce the basin-total escapement estimate for the current year.

In the Hood Canal , escapements are estimated in 10 survey reaches covering 9 miles (14.5 km) (Haymes 2008). In addition, natural smolt production and adult escapements are intensively monitored by WDFW at the Big Beef Creek Research Station and 3 nearby tributaries that enter Hood Canal on the Kitsap Peninsula northeast of Bremerton. A permanent WDFW upstream/downstream migrant weir is located on Big Beef Cr. just upstream of the estuary, and juvenile fence traps are installed annually on 3 smaller adjacent tributaries (WRIAs 15.0377, 15.0400, and 15.0404). The adult escapement information collected at this weir is used as an index abundance adjustment scalar in the Base-Year Index escapement estimation process for the . Spawning redd enumeration-based accounting of adult escapement is currently conducted on the three study streams adjacent to Big Beef that are being monitored for juvenile production as part of an ongoing habitat productivity study (Volkhardt et al. 2007). Historical trends in escapement for the Hood Canal are provided in Table ToDo and Figure ToDo. Known distribution of spawners within the basin is depicted in Figure 4.81.

ToDo –> add figure 4.2

Total by US and Canada and escapement for the Hood Canal for catch years 1986 to 2009. () estimates from 1986 to 1997 are based on CWT recoveries and were generated using the Mixed-Stock Model and cohort reconstruction process. A post-season FRAM assessment technique was used to estimate for catch years 1998 to 2009.

ToDo –> add figure 4.3

Figure 4.81: Spawner distribution of Coho Salmon in the Hood Canal River Basin.

Fishery Monitoring (should this be moved to above escapement monitoring?)

A fundamental requirement of abundance-based Coho Salmon management under the is that all fishery impacts on individual be monitored with respect to both number of fish caught and CWTs. This requires basic reporting of total impacts by fishery and the capacity to estimate each fishery’s -specific impacts. Total fishing mortalities for each must be estimated to enable managers the ability to evaluate the annual relative to the -prescribed impact limits. Assessments of total fishing mortalities for each must include both directed and incidentally-landed catch as well as estimates of non-landed mortalities. These estimates may be obtained through monitoring programs or, in some cases, generated through the use of algorithms built into the Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM). Monitoring programs may involve test fisheries or data collected directly from fishers (e.g., through creel survey interviews and other fisher-reported techniques, such as log books or fish-tickets). Estimation of non-landed fishing mortality requires annual estimates of encounter rates by fishery and gear.

Management-Unit-specific impacts are generally evaluated using the coast-wide system. This system manages information on the release and recovery of coded-wire tags. The volume of tags recovered for a given will depend on tagging rates, marine survival rates, exploitation and escapement rates, and sampling rates in fisheries and escapements. A recent review of the coastwide program (Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup 2008) recommends target sampling rates of 20% for the landed catch and 20% for escapements, with a minimum of 10 tags collected in each fishery or escapement stratum.

Post-season estimates are also generated using the Post-Season FRAM Model. Post-season estimates of catch and escapement are entered into the updated FRAM model with the same fishery regulation and effort package used for preseason modeling to generate post-season estimates.

Enhancement

Hatchery production within the Hood Canal is large, averaging 1.7 million Coho Salmon released annually for broods 1983 through 2020. These releases are from numerous small cooperative programs and a few larger hatchery programs within the , including net pens. The largest programs currently in operation include Quilcene National Fish Hatchery (34% of the total released 1983-2020), George Adams Hatchery (28%), Port Gamble Net Pens (26%), and Quilcene Net Pens (9%). Coho Salmon were released from Hoodsport Hatchery in South Hood Canal for broods 1983 through 1994 and average 119,000 per year during this period. A new program at the NF Skokomish Hatchery began in 2013 and has released an average of 9,000 fish since its inception.

Mass marking in the began with brood 1995 and has averaged 962,000 marked Coho Salmon annually.

Figure 4.82: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Hood Canal , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.7.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

The performances of forecasts for Hood Canal Coho abundance have generally underestimated actual abundance, resulting in negative differences between pre- and post-season estimates (Figure 4.83). During catch years 2004-2010, predicted cohort size (without natural mortality) ranged from a low of 30,363 (2008) to a high of 98,400 (2005) while post-season estimates ranged from 14,812 (2010) to 240,822 (2004). Accordingly, the difference between preseason and post-season estimates varied from −145% (2004) to +55% (2010) of the preseason estimates.

ToDo: SoPanel also wishes to see the numbers (pre, post, % diff from pre by year).

Figure 4.83: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Hood Canal MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used to develop the base period for the Hood Canal are provided in (To-do –> add reference to table here) and average base period by individual fisheries are provided here (To-do –> add base period fishery impacts).

During the base period, Coho Salmon production from the Hood Canal contributed to sport and commercial fisheries in southern BC, the northern Washington coast, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and inner Puget Sound (Figure 5.1; Appendix C). Terminal commercial purse seine, gill and set-net fisheries occur in commercial fishery management areas 9A, 12A, 12, 12B, 12C, 12D, and the Skokomish River.

Table 4.31: Hood Canal MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Brookings Troll	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	-	0.02%
Newport Sport	0.03%	0.07%	0.09%	-	-	0.19%
Newport Troll	0.04%	0.17%	0.08%	0.01%	-	0.30%
Coos Bay Sport	0.01%	0.03%	-	-	-	0.05%
Coos Bay Troll	0.03%	0.09%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.12%
Tillamook Sport	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%	-	-	0.10%
Tillamook Troll	0.03%	0.33%	0.11%	0.03%	-	0.50%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.06%	0.02%	0.04%	-	0.12%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.01%	0.12%	0.08%	-	-	0.21%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.00%	0.07%	0.11%	0.04%	-	0.22%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.04%	0.05%	0.01%	-	0.13%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.09%	0.04%	0.03%	-	0.19%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.05%	0.44%	0.24%	0.02%	-	0.74%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.09%	0.01%	0.06%	0.01%	-	0.18%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.12%	0.22%	0.22%	0.02%	-	0.58%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.06%	0.02%	0.03%	-	0.11%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.42%	0.58%	0.10%	-	1.09%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.04%	0.49%	0.07%	-	0.61%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.13%	0.66%	0.86%	0.26%	-	1.90%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.07%	0.12%	0.03%	0.23%
Grays Harbor Estuary Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.09%	0.02%	0.14%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	0.00%	0.16%	0.60%	1.01%	1.97%	3.75%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.02%	0.02%	0.07%	0.02%	0.14%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.03%	0.02%	0.13%	0.05%	0.22%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.32%	1.18%	2.25%	3.55%	0.92%	8.21%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.06%	0.38%	0.52%	1.08%	1.11%	3.15%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	-	0.03%	0.01%	0.05%	-	0.08%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.02%	0.02%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.08%	0.21%	0.41%	1.71%	1.44%	3.85%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.10%	0.09%	0.20%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.16%	0.14%	0.30%
WA Area 8.2 Sport (Everett)	-	-	0.23%	-	-	0.23%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	0.03%	0.04%	0.21%	0.79%	1.08%	2.14%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	6.34%	5.83%	12.17%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	3.71%	3.38%	7.10%
WA Area 10E Non-Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.02%	0.03%
WA Area 10E Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.08%	0.25%	0.33%
WA Area 10F-G Treaty Net (Lake Union)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.04%	0.04%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	0.00%	0.00%	0.03%	0.06%	0.05%	0.14%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.58%	0.76%	1.34%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.07%	0.09%	0.16%
WAArea 13 Marine Sport	-	0.01%	-	-	0.07%	0.08%
Area 13 Non-Treaty Net (So Puget Sound)	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
Area 13 Treaty Net (So Puget Sound)	-	-	-	-	0.08%	0.08%
Area 12 Marine Sport	-	-	0.01%	0.21%	0.44%	0.65%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.02%	2.37%	6.26%	8.65%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	0.03%	2.40%	8.20%	10.63%
Area 9/9A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.06%	0.07%
Area 9/9A Treaty Net (On Res)	-	-	-	1.08%	6.14%	7.22%
Area 12C-12D Non-Treaty Net (SE Hood Canal)	-	-	-	0.27%	0.86%	1.13%
Area 12C-12D Treaty Net (SE Hood Canal)	-	-	-	2.12%	4.02%	6.14%
Skokomish R Net	-	-	-	-	18.88%	18.88%
12, 12B Trib FW Sport	-	-	-	-	0.11%	0.11%
12C, 12D Trib FW Sport	-	-	-	-	0.53%	0.53%
Skokomish R Sport	-	-	-	-	0.57%	0.57%
Lower Fraser River Sport	0.00%	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	0.06%	-	-	-	0.06%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.07%	0.06%	0.00%	-	0.12%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.10%	0.00%	-	-	0.10%
BC South Central Troll	0.05%	0.42%	0.03%	0.01%	-	0.51%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.28%	5.64%	2.28%	1.85%	-	10.05%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.62%	14.64%	11.98%	5.15%	-	32.39%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	0.04%	0.06%	0.03%	-	0.12%
BC Juan de Fuca Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.00%
BC Northern Net	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Central Net	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%
SW Vancouver Island Net	0.00%	0.02%	-	0.22%	0.08%	0.33%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.08%	0.05%	0.04%	0.17%
Georgia Straits Net	-	-	0.02%	-	-	0.02%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.03%	-	-	0.03%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.02%	0.28%	5.88%	2.93%	0.05%	9.15%
Johnstone Strait Sport	0.01%	0.02%	0.01%	-	-	0.04%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.37%	0.75%	0.60%	0.65%	0.40%	2.78%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.14%	0.06%	0.13%	0.02%	-	0.36%
North Georgia Straits Sport	0.08%	0.06%	0.01%	0.02%	-	0.16%
South Georgia Straits Sport	0.02%	0.03%	0.01%	-	-	0.06%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	-	0.02%	-	-	0.02%

A species-selective commercial beach seine fishery occurs in Area 12A to allow harvest of Coho Salmon during the ESA protected summer chum run. A marine Coho Salmon sport fishery occurs in sport fishery management area 12, and significant freshwater Coho Salmon sport fisheries occur in the Dewatto, Tahuya, Skokomish and Big Quilcene rivers. The terminal fishery co-managers are WDFW, the Point No Point Treaty Council/Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Jamestown S’klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and the Skokomish Tribe.

Figure 4.84: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Hood Canal by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2022. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Total have generally declined, averaging 72% between 1986 and 1996 then gradually falling to an extended period of low (27%) during 1997-2004 (Figure 4.85). have increased since 2004, averaging 59% during 2005-2009 (Table 4.32). Up until 1996, the by Canadian fishers averaged 40%, but has since declined to an average of less than 1.5%.

ToDo - Remove this paragraph? A comparison of by major fisheries during the base period and the most recent five years (2006-2010) is provided in Figure 5.1. Individual commercial fishery management areas within Washington State are depicted in Figure 5.2 and 5.3.

Table 4.32: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival (Big Beef Creek), and (ER) of the Hood Canal Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	199,071	22.2%	112,005	0.7%	43.0%
2005	54,731	15.7%	34,076	1.8%	35.9%
2006	51,153	4.8%	13,269	1.9%	72.1%
2007	88,814	9.2%	46,350	2.6%	45.2%
2008	40,827	4.2%	23,477	1.2%	41.3%
2009	58,159	13.4%	26,925	1.7%	51.9%
2010	14,526	2.0%	4,170	0.9%	70.4%
2011	56,824	7.4%	24,369	2.9%	54.2%
2012	125,109	10.8%	51,758	2.6%	56.0%
2013	37,882	10.7%	16,037	3.7%	54.0%
2014	69,596	7.6%	22,087	5.8%	62.5%
2015	63,699	5.6%	26,302	5.7%	53.0%
2016	31,828	8.3%	19,065	1.3%	38.7%
2017	34,963	7.0%	22,507	2.3%	33.3%
2018	18,696	7.5%	7,982	4.0%	53.2%
2019	14,666	3.5%	7,908	5.5%	40.5%
2020	23,616	3.4%	16,829	3.4%	25.4%
2021	45,719	8.9%	34,388	3.4%	21.3%
2022	20,007	4.2%	9,189	3.5%	50.6%
2023	NA	5.6%	NA	NA	NA

Figure 4.85: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Hood Canal MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Hood Canal MU (Need esc goal for Hood Canal 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.86: Hood Canal post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.87: Hood Canal pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.33: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Hood Canal from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	99,424.9	199,070.8
2005	98,952.1	54,730.8
2006	59,812.2	51,153.3
2007	42,628.1	88,814.5
2008	29,347.0	40,827.4
2009	48,990.5	58,159.3
2010	33,440.9	14,525.9
2011	75,237.4	56,823.6
2012	73,928.5	125,109.1
2013	37,092.1	37,882.0
2014	47,989.5	69,595.9
2015	61,914.7	63,698.8
2016	35,467.1	31,828.2
2017	116,091.8	34,962.8
2018	59,861.9	18,696.2
2019	40,410.6	14,666.3
2020	35,231.9	23,616.1
2021	29,047.5	45,718.6
2022	20,368.4	20,007.0
2023	38,213.0	NA
2024	36,873.6	NA

4.2.8 US Strait of Juan de Fuca (JDF)

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.8.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The US Strait JDF is one of the US Inside and includes Coho Salmon inhabiting the numerous streams and rivers along the southern side of Strait of Juan de Fuca. This spans two evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). Populations inhabiting the western Straits (from Salt Creek westwards) are part of the Olympic Peninsula ESU, while those inhabiting the Elwha River eastwards belong to the Puget Sound/Strait of Georgia ESU (Weitkamp et al. 1995). The former was deemed “not warranted” for listing under the US Endangered Species Act, while the latter is a “species of concern” (NOAA Fisheries 2009).

The Strait of Juan de Fuca covers an area of approximately 1,500 mi² and includes some 48 independent watersheds that support Coho Salmon ranging in size of basin from less than 10 mi² to more than 300 mi². Its boundaries are Cape Flattery to the west and Point Wilson to the east along the northern end of the Olympic Peninsula.

The Strait of Juan de Fuca consists of numerous small to large tributaries draining the Olympic Mountain range and surrounding foothills. The western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (WSJF) encompasses waters emptying to the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of the Elwha River, to the tip of Cape Flattery. The WSJF contains 27 salmonid-bearing watersheds that drain directly into the Strait of Juan de Fuca. The largest subbasin within the watershed is the Hoko River, followed by the Lyre, Pysht, Sekiu, and Clallam rivers (Smith 1999). The eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca includes all streams and rivers from the Elwha River east to Chimacum Creek.

The climate varies widely throughout the , with higher annual precipitation to the west and at higher elevations. Annual rainfall decreases dramatically from the western to the eastern portion of the , due to the rain-shadow effect of the Olympic Mountains on the eastern portion of the . The eastern portion of the receives as little as 15 inches [38 cm] of rain a year, increasing to over 85 inches [216 cm] in the western portion of the .

The estuarine habitat in the is somewhat transitional between the more sheltered inland estuaries of inner Puget Sound and the open Pacific Ocean, with decreasing shallow, sheltered marine habitat encountered moving westward from inner Puget Sound.

Coho Salmon in the Strait of Juan de Fuca are significantly influenced by degradation of freshwater habitats (McHenry 1996). Habitat conditions in the Dungeness River are so severely degraded that only limited natural production occurs. The lower 11 miles of the Dungeness River has been extensively channelized and systematically cleared of large woody debris. Surface water withdrawals on the Dungeness River currently average about 60% of the river’s natural stream flow. Construction of hydroelectric dams without passage facilities on the Elwha River at RM 4.9 and RM 12.0 effectively eliminated 35.9 miles of mainstem and 42.9 mi of tributary habitat from production. A major improvement in anadromous salmonid habitat is happening in the with the recent removal of the two Elwha River dams. Their removal has opened this currently inaccessible habitat, much of which is located within Olympic National Park and in extremely good condition.

Much of the freshwater habitat in the is managed for commercial timber production, though the upper reaches of the longer tributaries in the region around the Elwha River originate in Olympic National Park. The main population centers of Sequim and Port Angeles are located in the eastern part of the . Urbanization, agricultural activities, and water withdraws have degraded the productivity of streams in this part of the , with the exception of the upper reaches of the longer tributaries that originate in Olympic National Park.

A few salmon hatchery facilities exist within the Strait of Juan de Fuca (Figure 4.88). Below is a list of those programs that rear and release Coho Salmon.

• The Lower Elwha Fish Hatchery is located on RM 1.25 on the Elwha River. It was completed in 2011 and replaced the Elwha Hatchery which was located near the mouth of the Elwha River (RM 0.25) on the Elwha Reservation (Elwha Klallam Tribe 2003; LEKT 2012). The current Coho Salmon program is operated as an “integrated harvest” program with an annual production goal of 425,000 smolts to be released on station. The goals of the current program are to preserve and rebuild natural Coho Salmon production in the Elwha River by supplementing the abundance of juvenile and returning adult fish. Long term goals include recolonization of suitable Coho Salmon spawning and rearing habitat and enhanced in-river terminal harvest opportunities.

• The Dungeness Hatchery is located on the Dungeness River at RM 10.5 from the estuary, and is operated by WDFW (WDFW 2003a). The current Coho Salmon program is operated as a “segregated” program with an annual production goal of 500,000 smolts to be released on station, 2,000 fry planted into Cooper Creek, and up to 1,900 eyed eggs transferred to local school projects. The goal of this program is provide fish for sport and commercial harvest.

• Hurd Creek Hatchery is operated by WDFW and is located on Hurd Creek (WRIA 18.0028), a tributary to the Dungeness River (WRIA 18.0018) at RM 3 (WDFW 2003b). The facility began operating in 1980 and its primary purpose is to aid in wild stock restoration. The Coho Salmon program has been operated as an “integrated recovery” program with the goal of contributing to the restoration of a healthy, natural, self-sustaining population of Coho Salmon that will maintain the genetic characteristic of the native stock. This program began with the 1998 brood and was to last 9 years (3 complete broods). Program specifications include that Coho Salmon are to be collected from Snow Creek and spawned, with the goal of releasing 18,000 unfed fry each into Snow and Andrews creeks and 9,000 fingerling and 9,000 yearlings into Crocker Lake.

Figure 4.88: Strait of Juan De Fuca MU Watershed

4.2.8.2 Management Framework

Objectives

Under the Comprehensive Coho Management Plan, eastern and western Strait of Juan de Fuca wild Coho are primary (key) , while aggregate production from the Dungeness and Elwha rivers are auxiliary (CCW 1998). Under this plan, primary are controlling units in the sense that predefined management actions will be undertaken under specified abundance conditions, auxiliary are those managed to meet or exceed a minimum escapement, and secondary units are passively managed in mixed stock fisheries.

The western portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (west of the Sekiu River) is managed with Washington coastal populations, while the eastern portion is managed with Puget Sound populations (PFMC 2011). The Washington coastal group includes Coho Salmon inhabiting streams north of the Columbia River through the western Strait of Juan de Fuca; major populations include Willapa Bay (hatchery), Grays Harbor, Quinault (hatchery), Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute Coho Salmon. The Puget Sound group includes primary of Hood Canal, Skagit, Snohomish, Stillaguamish, South Puget Sound (hatchery), and the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca (PFMC 2011).

Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks (including western Strait of Juan de Fuca) include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011). The ’s conservation objectives for stocks managed for natural production were based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) spawner escapements established pursuant to the US District Court order in Hoh versus Baldrige (No. 81-742 [R] C). The conservation objectives for the Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute rivers were developed as ranges intended to bracket estimates of MSY escapement. The range reflects the degree of uncertainty inherent by using the high estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the low estimate of carrying capacity for the lower bound, and the low estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the high estimate of smolt carrying capacity for the upper end of the range. The ranges were further adjusted upward by 26-184% for risk aversion and habitat considerations. However, annual natural spawning escapement targets may vary from the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of Hoh versus Baldrige and subsequent US District Court orders. After an annual agreement is reached, ocean fishery escapement objectives are established for each river, or region of origin. The agreement includes provisions for treaty Indian allocation requirements and inside non-Indian fishery needs.

For the eastern portion of the Strait of Juan de Fuca , the ’s conservation objectives are based on the Puget Sound Salmon Management Plan, which define management objectives and long-term goals for these stocks as developed by representatives from Federal, state, and tribal agencies (PFMC 2011). Conservation objectives for specific stocks are based on either maximum sustainable production for stocks managed primarily for natural production or on hatchery escapement needs for stocks managed for artificial production. The original conservation objectives were developed by a State/Tribal Management Plan Development Team following the Boldt Decision with the goal for natural spawning stocks defined as “the adult spawning population that will, on the average, maximize biomass of juvenile outmigrants subsequent to incubation and freshwater rearing under average environmental conditions”. The method used to develop the objectives was based on assessment of the quantity and quality of rearing habitat and the number of adult spawners required to fully seed the habitat. Some objectives have subsequently been modified by the US District Court Fisheries Advisory Board and later determinations of the WDFW/Tribal Technical Committee. However, annual natural management objectives may vary from the FMP conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of US versus Washington (384 F. Supp. 312 [W.D. Wash. 1974]) and subsequent US District Court orders.

In 2009, the adopted annual management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon as recommended by WDFW and tribal co-managers under provisions of US versus Washington. The annual objectives were based on the categorical status and associated maximum limits. The formally adopted management objectives for Puget Sound Coho Salmon in November 2009, which were consistent with objectives, and in 2010 it replaced the longstanding FMP spawning escapement objectives. The current / reference points for the Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon population are provided below.

Table 4.34: Current Strait of Juan de Fuca ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 11,680	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	11,680 – 27,445	21% – 40%
Abundant/Normal	> 27,445	41% – 60%

Queets River natural Coho Salmon, Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon, and Snohomish River natural Coho Salmon were found to meet the criteria for being classified as overfished in the PFMC Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, released in February 2018. Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon have met the criteria for not overfished/rebuilding status (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023a).

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Wild stock tagging within this was only implemented on small numbers of Coho Salmon for broods 1984 through 1987 Figure 4.89; therfore, long-term indicators within this are limited to the Dungeness and Lower Elwha hatchery stocks. Approximately 69,000 tagged and clipped fish have been released from the Dungeness Hatchery in 14 years of the years since brood 1983. Beginning in 1985, the Lower Elwha Hatchery has released 90,000 clipped and tagged Coho Salmon smolts annually. A program was implemented there with brood 1995 and approximately 75,000 tagged and unclipped have been released annually in most years.

Figure 4.89: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Strait of Juan de Fuca MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.90: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Strait of Juan de Fuca MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

Figure 4.91: Estimated number of Strait of Juan de Fuca MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1990 through 2022

Figure 4.92: Estimated marine survival rates for Strait of Juan de Fuca Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Strait of Juan de Fuca abundance forecast is 19,690, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Moderate” under the 2019 and “Low” under the . This results in an allowable total of no more than 40%.

This forecast includes both Eastern and Western Strait of Juan de Fuca drainages. ocean recruits were predicted as the product of the estimated 2023 Coho Salmon smolt outmigration from all independent tributaries of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and a predicted marine survival rate of 7.15%. The marine survival rate was predicted by an r-square-weighted average of two linear regression models using the southern copepod biomass anomaly and the Pacific decadal oscillation index (PDO) from May through September, both during the year of smolt outmigration. The linear relationships that these models solved for have r-square values of 0.34 and 0.33, respectively.

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

Hatchery production within this has averaged 1.3 million Coho Salmon released annually over broods 1983 through 2020. Most of this production has been split between the Dungeness (50%) and the Lower Elwha Hatchery (44%). Approximately 673,000 Coho Salmon have been released annually from the Dungeness Hatchery over this period with another 626,000 released annually from the Lower Elwha Hatchery beginning with brood 1985. Mass marking of hatchery fish began with brood 1995 at the Lower Elwha Hatchery and with brood 1996 at the Dungeness Hatchery, averaging 1.1 million annually in total in recent years (Figure 4.47) (Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 1977).

Figure 4.93: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Strait of Juan de Fuca , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.8.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.94: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Strait of Juan de Fuca MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Strait of Juan de Fuca are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.35: Strait of Juan de Fuca MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
KMZ Sport	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
KMZ Troll	0.04%	-	-	-	-	0.04%
Brookings Sport	0.00%	0.03%	-	-	-	0.03%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.01%
Newport Sport	0.00%	0.11%	0.11%	0.17%	-	0.39%
Newport Troll	0.14%	0.23%	0.01%	0.01%	-	0.39%
Coos Bay Sport	0.03%	0.06%	0.02%	-	-	0.11%
Coos Bay Troll	0.00%	0.05%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.06%
Tillamook Sport	0.00%	0.06%	0.00%	-	-	0.07%
Tillamook Troll	0.02%	0.55%	0.28%	0.03%	-	0.87%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.06%	-	-	0.06%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	-	0.15%	0.08%	-	-	0.23%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.14%	0.10%	0.04%	-	0.28%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.10%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.15%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.01%	0.25%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.30%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.06%	0.34%	0.20%	-	-	0.60%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	-	0.00%	0.04%	0.06%	-	0.10%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	-	0.02%	0.15%	0.10%	-	0.27%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.00%	0.03%	-	-	0.03%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.12%	0.13%	0.03%	-	0.28%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.42%	0.08%	-	0.53%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.08%	0.41%	0.73%	0.29%	-	1.52%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.14%	0.11%	0.26%
Grays Harbor Estuary Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.05%	0.08%	0.14%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.05%	0.29%	0.55%	7.96%	8.85%
West JDF Straits Trib Net	-	-	-	-	0.59%	0.59%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.04%	0.07%	0.12%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.08%	0.13%	0.22%
West JDF Straits Trib Sport	-	-	-	-	0.10%	0.10%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.18%	0.47%	1.45%	4.10%	1.17%	7.38%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.00%	0.21%	0.29%	1.24%	0.59%	2.34%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	0.00%	-	-	-	-	0.00%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	-	-	0.01%	0.07%	0.02%	0.10%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.03%	0.03%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.04%	0.04%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.06%	0.08%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.17%	0.24%	0.41%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.10%	0.14%	0.24%
WA Area 10E Non-Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 10E Treaty Net (East Kitsap)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.02%	0.03%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.11%	0.11%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.09%	0.09%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.11%	0.11%
Area 9/9A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Area 9/9A Treaty Net (On Res)	-	-	-	0.04%	0.14%	0.18%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.06%	0.14%	-	-	0.20%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.01%	0.08%	-	-	0.09%
BC South Central Troll	0.12%	0.71%	0.39%	0.21%	-	1.44%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.44%	5.64%	3.84%	2.25%	-	12.17%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.92%	14.20%	10.32%	2.88%	-	28.31%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	0.03%	-	-	-	0.03%
BC Northern Net	-	0.04%	0.05%	-	-	0.08%
BC Central Net	-	-	-	0.04%	-	0.04%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	0.15%	0.08%	0.23%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.08%	0.08%	0.20%
Georgia Straits Net	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	-	0.17%	2.30%	1.52%	0.08%	4.07%
Johnstone Strait Sport	-	0.00%	0.08%	-	-	0.09%
BC Northern Sport	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	0.01%	0.52%	0.25%	0.46%	0.30%	1.54%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	-	0.09%	0.04%	0.00%	-	0.13%
North Georgia Straits Sport	0.05%	0.11%	0.04%	-	0.00%	0.20%
South Georgia Straits Sport	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	-	0.03%	0.04%	-	0.07%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.04%	0.19%	0.08%	-	0.31%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	-	0.11%	-	-	0.11%

Figure 4.95: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Strait of Juan de Fuca by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.36: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival, and (ER) of the Strait of Juan de Fuca Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	21,816	7.8%	19,756	0.7%	8.3%
2005	10,933	5.6%	10,186	1.5%	5.0%
2006	4,184	1.5%	3,802	1.6%	7.3%
2007	8,613	2.4%	7,528	2.5%	9.6%
2008	3,487	0.9%	3,179	1.0%	7.4%
2009	16,743	8.2%	14,199	1.0%	13.8%
2010	20,053	8.4%	18,417	0.5%	7.3%
2011	11,715	4.6%	10,731	2.1%	5.8%
2012	12,534	4.0%	11,020	1.7%	10.1%
2013	9,800	5.4%	8,459	2.9%	10.1%
2014	13,811	3.5%	11,487	4.6%	11.5%
2015	4,711	1.4%	3,860	3.7%	14.0%
2016	8,692	3.9%	8,435	0.8%	1.7%
2017	5,856	2.1%	5,530	1.3%	3.9%
2018	5,939	3.2%	5,470	2.7%	4.8%
2019	5,258	2.4%	4,625	3.1%	8.5%
2020	9,200	3.7%	8,548	2.7%	4.1%
2021	22,440	7.0%	20,837	2.5%	4.3%
2022	18,396	10.3%	16,975	2.1%	5.3%

Figure 4.96: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Strait of Juan de Fuca MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Strait of Juan de Fuca MU (Need esc goal for SJF 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.97: Strait of Juan De Fuca post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.98: Strait of Juan de Fuca pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.37: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Strait of Juan de Fuca from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	35,883.8	21,816.5
2005	20,747.2	10,932.6
2006	26,208.1	4,183.7
2007	30,033.1	8,612.6
2008	24,276.1	3,486.7
2009	20,542.7	16,743.0
2010	8,493.2	20,053.2
2011	12,355.8	11,714.8
2012	12,670.9	12,534.1
2013	12,602.7	9,800.1
2014	12,588.5	13,811.5
2015	11,168.8	4,710.8
2016	4,434.0	8,692.2
2017	13,081.1	5,855.9
2018	7,182.9	5,939.3
2019	8,825.5	5,257.8
2020	7,547.2	9,200.2
2021	6,702.5	22,439.9
2022	7,318.7	18,396.1
2023	15,676.8	NA
2024	22,134.5	NA

4.2.9 Quillayute

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

Note that Quillayute and Queets values are those from the FRAM database and have not yet been extracted from the relevant TAMM cells for each year

4.2.9.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Quillayute consists of naturally-produced fall run Coho Salmon in the Quillayute River basin and its tributaries (Dickey, Sol Duc, Sitkum, Calawah, and Bogachiel rivers) (Figure 4.99). The Quillayute River has two unique populations of Coho Salmon, a summer run and a fall run (Haymes 2008). The summer Coho Salmon run has a peak river entry from the last week of August to the first week of September. The fall Coho Salmon run has a run timing typical of other coastal Coho Salmon populations, with peak river entry in mid-October. There is a hatchery and natural-origin production component to each population. The Quillayute River consists of the natural-origin fall run. Quillayute Coho Salmon belong to the Olympic Peninsula evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (Weitkamp et al. 1995). This ESU was deemed “not warranted” for listing under the US Endangered Species Act (Ford 2011).

The Quillayute consists of five primary tributaries and numerous smaller tributaries that join to form the Quillayute River (Haymes 2008; Hunter 2006). The Quillayute River has a short mainstem of 5.5 river miles (RM). At RM 5 the Bogachiel and Sol Duc river systems combine to form the Quillayute. The upper reaches of the Sol Duc, Calawah, and Bogachiel rivers originate inside the Olympic National Park, draining the northwest and western slopes of the Olympic Mountains. These tributaries flow westward to converge and enter the Pacific Ocean at the town of La Push. The Dickey River drains the coastal hills to the north of the Quillayute River, flowing southward to join the lower mainstem Quillayute one mile from the Pacific Ocean near the town of La Push.

The Quillayute system drains over 825 mi² (Hunter 2006). The basin is primarily rain-fed, with the exception of some snowmelt input into the upper Sol Duc, Bogachiel, and Calawah sub-basins during the winter and spring. Rainfall is high, exceeding 100 inches [254 cm] in the lower valley, and 150+ inches [381+ cm] in upper reaches of the basin.

The estuary, like other north coastal rivers is minimal in size, essentially consisting of a one mile stretch of river channel that is subject to tidal exchange, draining directly into the open Pacific Ocean.

The Olympic National Park owns the largest percentage of the coastal lands and the very highest reaches of the Olympic Mountains (Hunter 2006). This includes the headwaters of the upper Sol Duc, Calawah, Sitkum and Bogachiel Rivers. Land use outside of the park is largely dominated by timber production. The US Forest Service (USFS) manages the lands downstream of the Park (middle altitudes). Private timber and state lands are downstream from the USFS holdings. The basin is relatively lightly populated. The City of Forks is the only incorporated city and a few small towns exist, the towns of Beaver, Sappho, and La Push.

Figure 4.99: Quillayute MU Watershed

4.2.9.2 Management Framework

Objectives

The Quillayute is managed together with other Washington coastal populations, which include all natural and hatchery stocks originating in Washington coastal streams north of the Columbia River to the western Strait of Juan de Fuca (west of the Sekiu River) (PFMC 2013a). Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2013a).

’s conservation objectives for stocks managed for natural production were based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) spawner escapements established pursuant to the US District Court order in Hoh versus Baldrige (No. 81-742 [R] C). When the adopted Amendment 16 to the Salmon FMP in 2011 (76 FR 81852, December 29, 2011), it brought the Salmon Fishery Management Plan (FMP) into compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) as amended in 2007, and the corresponding revised National Standard 1 Guidelines’ (NS1Gs) mandate to end and prevent overfishing. In doing so, the adopted new status determination criteria (SDC) for overfishing, approaching an overfished condition, overfished, not overfished/rebuilding, and rebuilt under FMP Amendment 16. The PFMC also adopted corresponding maximum fishing mortality thresholds, which are based on the maximum sustainable yield . Status determinations for overfishing, overfished, not overfished/rebuilding, and rebuilt were reported in the annual SAFE document, Review of 2012 Ocean Salmon Fisheries (PFMC 2013b). Amendment 16 also added to the FMP “de minimis” fishing provisions that allow for low levels of fishing impacts on specified stocks that are at low levels of abundance.

The conservation objectives for the Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute rivers were developed as ranges intended to bracket estimates of MSY escapement. For The Quillayute , management objectives are expressed as a range of spawning escapements expected to produce MSY. Allowable are calculated from the forecast abundance and the lower end of the escapement range and used to classify the categorical status of the . This rate is the maximum allowed under the when the is in the moderate or abundant status, but up to 20% are allowed if the is in the low abundance status. The range reflects inherent uncertainty by using the high estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the low estimate of carrying capacity for the lower bound, and the low estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the high estimate of smolt carrying capacity for the upper end of the range. The ranges were further adjusted upward by 26-184% for risk aversion and habitat considerations. However, annual natural spawning escapement targets may vary from the FMP conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of Hoh versus Baldrige and subsequent US District Court orders. After an annual agreement is reached, ocean fishery escapement objectives are established for each river, or region of origin. The agreement includes provisions for treaty Indian allocation requirements and inside non-Indian fishery needs. Agreements on annual spawning targets for Washington coastal Coho Salmon other than those in the FMP are not made every year (PFMC 2013b).

For US “outside” , total ceiling for the natural fall Coho Salmon population is defined as the maximum rate that will meet the minimum escapement goal of 6,300, when applied to the preseason ocean abundance forecast (Haymes 2008). For the 2009 return, for example, Quillayute fall Coho Salmon Salmon ocean abundance of age-3 fish was forecast as 19,261 fish or in the “abundant” category. Therefore, ocean abundance (19,261) minus the minimum escapement goal (6,300) is 12,961 fish available to harvest, or 67.3% of the preseason forecast (12,961÷19,261 = 0.673). The current PST/ ceilings for the Quillayute Coho Salmon population are provided below.

There is no management objective for the summer Coho Salmon run. The Quillayute is currently managed in US fisheries for a natural fall Coho Salmon escapement goal range of 6,300 to 15,800 adult spawners, and annual egg-take objectives for summer and fall Coho Salmon at Sol Duc Hatchery.

Table 4.38: Current Qullayute ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 7,875	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	7,875 – 10,500	21% – 40%
Abundant/Normal	> 10,500	> 40% (footnote)

footnote - Limit of 59% (maximum fishery mortality threshold) under Amendment 16 (see Appendix E of The Ad Hoc Salmon Amendment Committee 2011).

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Figure 4.100: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Quillayute MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.101: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Quillayute MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

The estimated number of total fall smolts averaged 350,000 annually from 1995 to 2022, with a high of 655,000 in 2011 and a low of 135,000 in 1999.

Figure 4.102: Estimated number of Quillayute MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1995 through 2022

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Quillayute abundance forecast consists of summer (393 adults) and fall (10,246 adults) run components, totalling 10,639 . This forecast results in a classification of the stock abundance as “Moderate”, with a total allowable ER of 39%, under the 2019 .

This forecast is based on Coho Salmon smolt data measured in the Quillayute watershed in 2023 by West Fork Environmental and the Quileute Nation. A total of 252,000 Coho Salmon smolts are estimated to have emigrated from the Quillayute River system in 2023. Smolt abundance from the Dickey River was estimated to be 27,431 wild Coho Salmon smolts (245 smolts per square mile). Smolt abundance from the Bogachiel, Calawah, and Sol Duc rivers combined was estimated to be 164,701 wild Coho Salmon smolts (316 smolts per square mile). Total smolts were separated into summer and fall natural Coho Salmon smolts by the relative number of natural brood year 2021 spawners, 3.69% and 96.31%, respectively. Results from this separation yield estimates of 9,300 natural summer Coho Salmon smolts and 242,700 natural fall Coho Salmon smolts. The natural Coho Salmon forecast is based on the estimated total natural summer and fall Coho Salmon smolt production (252,000) and a projected marine survival rate of 5.2%.

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

A few salmon hatchery facilities exist within the basin; however, only one currently produces Coho Salmon, WDFW’s Sol Duc Hatchery on the Sol Duc River at RM 29. This facility began operating in 1970, collects adult broodstock on-site, and has egg incubation and rearing facilities. Both summer and fall stock Coho Salmon are produced at this facility and both programs are integrated harvest programs (2012 future brood document available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01356/wdfw01356.pdf). The goals of the programs are to release 250,000 fall run smolts and 100,000 summer run smolts annually.

Figure 4.103: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Quillayute , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.9.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.104: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Quillayute MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Quillayute are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.39: Quillayute MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Fort Bragg Sport	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	-	0.01%
KMZ Sport	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
KMZ Troll	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
So Calif. Troll	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
Brookings Sport	0.01%	0.00%	0.01%	-	-	0.02%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Newport Sport	0.06%	0.30%	0.17%	-	-	0.52%
Newport Troll	0.32%	0.74%	0.28%	0.02%	-	1.37%
Coos Bay Sport	0.05%	0.07%	0.04%	-	-	0.15%
Coos Bay Troll	0.11%	0.36%	0.14%	0.01%	-	0.62%
Tillamook Sport	0.02%	0.21%	0.03%	-	-	0.26%
Tillamook Troll	0.04%	1.13%	0.35%	0.08%	-	1.60%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	-	0.16%	0.06%	0.01%	0.23%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	-	0.23%	0.32%	0.02%	-	0.57%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.18%	0.51%	-	-	0.70%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.08%	0.16%	0.06%	-	0.33%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.20%	0.13%	0.11%	-	0.47%
WA Area 2 Sport	-	0.50%	0.60%	-	-	1.09%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.25%	0.03%	0.13%	0.08%	-	0.48%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.33%	0.49%	0.45%	0.13%	-	1.41%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.07%	0.03%	-	-	0.10%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.08%	0.22%	0.02%	-	0.32%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.03%	0.34%	0.03%	0.03%	0.43%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.14%	0.48%	0.59%	0.10%	0.19%	1.51%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.00%	0.01%
Quinault R Net	-	-	-	0.02%	-	0.02%
Queets R Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
Quillayute R Sport	-	-	-	-	2.91%	2.91%
Quillayute R Net	-	-	-	7.99%	19.84%	27.82%
Quillayute R C&S	-	-	-	-	0.67%	0.67%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	0.07%	0.48%	0.55%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.02%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.01%	0.06%	0.10%	0.42%	0.59%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.03%	0.34%	0.31%	0.25%	0.47%	1.40%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	-	-	0.02%	0.01%	-	0.03%
WA Area 7 Sport (San Juan Islands)	-	-	-	0.05%	-	0.05%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.14%	0.10%	0.13%	-	0.37%
BC North Central Troll	-	-	0.00%	0.07%	-	0.08%
BC South Central Troll	0.06%	0.34%	0.11%	0.10%	-	0.61%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.08%	2.76%	2.99%	0.57%	-	6.41%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.58%	7.82%	7.72%	2.77%	-	18.87%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	0.02%	-	-	-	0.02%
BC Northern Net	-	0.02%	-	-	-	0.02%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.58%	0.59%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	0.04%	0.04%	-	-	0.08%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	-	0.10%	0.69%	0.32%	0.08%	1.19%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	-	0.04%	0.17%	0.12%	0.14%	0.47%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	-	0.02%	0.01%	-	-	0.03%
North Georgia Straits Sport	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.02%	-	-	-	0.02%
SEAK Southeast Troll	-	0.01%	0.03%	-	-	0.04%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%

Figure 4.105: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Quillayute by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.40: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Quillayute Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	14,090	6,767	0.4%	51.5%
2005	20,820	11,500	0.9%	43.8%
2006	9,455	4,681	0.8%	49.7%
2007	10,672	6,162	0.9%	41.2%
2008	10,018	6,190	0.3%	37.7%
2009	12,475	3,626	0.4%	70.5%
2010	17,083	9,832	0.2%	42.2%
2011	13,348	8,067	0.8%	38.7%
2012	12,815	5,841	0.8%	53.5%
2013	15,788	7,059	1.2%	53.9%
2014	17,258	7,401	2.0%	55.1%
2015	4,800	2,538	1.3%	45.7%
2016	11,696	9,545	0.4%	17.9%
2017	12,931	7,467	0.4%	41.8%
2018	8,666	6,089	1.1%	28.6%
2019	10,905	6,848	1.0%	36.2%
2020	9,107	7,539	1.6%	15.6%
2021	11,578	11,145	1.7%	2.0%
2022	16,266	13,211	1.1%	17.7%

Figure 4.106: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Quillayute MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Quillayute MU (Need esc goal for Quillayute 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.107: Quillayute post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.108: Quillayute pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.41: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Quillayute from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	21,377.6	14,090.2
2005	18,667.1	20,820.5
2006	14,702.3	9,455.2
2007	10,877.9	10,672.4
2008	10,588.1	10,017.5
2009	19,355.9	12,475.2
2010	22,156.2	17,082.7
2011	28,308.0	13,347.5
2012	33,702.7	12,814.9
2013	17,296.3	15,787.8
2014	18,484.8	17,258.0
2015	10,537.3	4,799.6
2016	4,481.9	11,695.6
2017	15,882.1	12,931.5
2018	10,581.5	8,666.3
2019	14,790.3	10,905.5
2020	9,189.5	9,106.8
2021	7,560.9	11,577.7
2022	12,524.8	16,266.1
2023	13,524.2	NA
2024	10,279.2	NA

4.2.10 Hoh

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.10.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Hoh consists of the Hoh River basin and consists of a single population of Coho Salmon occupying the Riverbasin. This belongs to the Olympic Peninsula evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (Weitkamp et al. 1995). It was deemed “not warranted” for listing under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2009).

The freshwater habitat of the includes the mainstem Hoh river and numerous tributaries, with a total basin area of 299 mi² (774 km²) (Haymes 2008). The Hoh River originates in the center of the Olympic Mountains and flows westward, entering the Pacific Ocean at the Hoh Indian Reservation. The main Hoh River channel is glacially fed, originating from glacier fields on Mt. Olympus. The tributaries are largely rainwater fed. Annual rainfall is high, exceeding 100 inches [254 cm] in the lower valley, and 150+ inches [381+ cm] in upper reaches of the basin.

The estuary, like other north Olympic Peninsula coastal rivers is quite small, and essentially consists of a short stretch of river channel that is subject to tidal exchange, and enters the Pacific Ocean directly.

The upper basin is located within Olympic National Park. Land use outside of Olympic National Park is largely dominated by timber production. The is lightly populated, with the Hoh Indian Reservation community located at the mouth of the Hoh River, and scattered farms and residential development located in the lower and mid valley.

Figure 4.109: Hoh MU Watershed

4.2.10.2 Management Framework

Objectives

The Hoh is managed with together with other Washington coastal populations, which include all natural and hatchery stocks originating in Washington coastal streams north of the Columbia River to the western Strait of Juan de Fuca (PFMC 2011). Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011).

Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011). The ’s conservation objectives for stocks managed for natural production were based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) spawner escapements established pursuant to the US District Court order in Hoh versus Baldrige. The conservation objectives for the Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute Rivers were developed as ranges intended to bracket estimates of MSY escapement. The range reflects inherent uncertainty by using the high estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the low estimate of carrying capacity for the lower bound, and the low estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the high estimate of smolt carrying capacity for the upper end of the range. The ranges were further adjusted upward by 26-184% for risk aversion and habitat considerations. However, annual natural spawning escapement targets may vary from the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of Hoh versus Baldrige and subsequent US District Court orders. After an annual agreement is reached, ocean fishery escapement objectives are established for each river, or region of origin. The agreement includes provisions for treaty Indian allocation requirements and inside non-Indian fishery needs. Agreements on annual spawning targets for Washington coastal Coho Salmon other than those in the FMP are not made every year (PFMC 2011).

The current total ceiling for the natural Coho Salmon population is defined as the maximum rate that will meet the minimum escapement goal of 2,000 when applied to the pre-season ocean abundance forecast (Haymes 2008). The basin is currently managed in US fisheries for a natural fall Coho Salmon escapement goal range of 2,000 to 5,000. The current ceilings for the Hoh Coho Salmon population are listed below.

Table 4.42: Current Hoh ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 2,500	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	2,500 – 3,333	21% – 35%
Abundant/Normal	> 3,333	36% – 60%

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Figure 4.110: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Hoh MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.111: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Hoh MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

The estimated number of total smolts averaged 162,000 annually from 2000 to 2022, with a high of 286,000 in 2011 and a low of 69,000 in 2015.

Figure 4.112: Estimated number of Hoh MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1995 through 2022

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Hoh abundance forecast is 4,870, resulting in a classification of the stock status as “Abundant”, with a total allowable ER of 59%, under the 2019 .

This forecast is based on estimated average natural smolt production per square mile of watershed from the Clearwater River tributary which lies between the Queets River mainstem and the Hoh River. The Quinault Fisheries Department has a long-standing trapping program on the Clearwater River to estimate smolt production; it is assumed the two rivers produce smolts at a comparable rate per square mile of watershed. In 2023, the Clearwater produced 51,620 smolts at the rate of 369 smolts per mile. Applying that rate to the Hoh watershed of 299 square miles yields 110,331 natural Coho Salmon smolts emigrating from the Hoh River in 2023.

A marine survival estimate to of 5.44% was applied to the total natural smolt production estimate to predict the 2024 return of Hoh River natural Coho Salmon. This rate is the mean of two marine survival estimates of wild stocks that are to the north and south of the Hoh River: the Queets wild Coho Salmon to the south with a marine survival estimate of 7.69% and Washington Coast wild Coho Salmon stocks with a marine survival estimate of 3.20% . The average marine survival rate of 5.44% (4.41% ) is within 2% of the survival of 3.2% predicted in 2024 for other Washington Coast Coho Salmon stocks (Litz 2024).

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

There is currently no hatchery Coho Salmon production present in the . The Chalaat Creek Hatchery is run by the Hoh Indian Tribe and formerly produced Coho Salmon. There have been periodic releases of hatchery Coho Salmon from other coastal basins.

Figure 4.113: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Hoh , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.10.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.114: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Hoh MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Hoh are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.43: Hoh MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Brookings Troll	0.02%	-	-	-	-	0.02%
Newport Sport	0.04%	0.52%	0.33%	0.10%	-	0.99%
Newport Troll	0.18%	2.16%	0.74%	0.11%	-	3.19%
Coos Bay Sport	-	0.24%	0.15%	0.05%	-	0.44%
Coos Bay Troll	0.10%	0.37%	0.17%	0.03%	-	0.66%
Tillamook Sport	-	0.10%	0.40%	-	-	0.50%
Tillamook Troll	0.07%	1.46%	0.49%	0.13%	-	2.15%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.11%	0.28%	0.07%	-	0.47%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.09%	0.39%	0.34%	0.10%	-	0.92%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.03%	0.28%	0.96%	0.22%	-	1.49%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.17%	0.48%	0.12%	-	0.80%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.42%	0.41%	0.22%	-	1.08%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.07%	0.55%	1.88%	0.83%	-	3.33%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.11%	0.01%	0.28%	0.41%	-	0.82%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.15%	0.27%	1.01%	0.72%	-	2.16%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.07%	0.11%	0.04%	-	0.23%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.13%	0.58%	0.06%	-	0.77%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.08%	0.73%	0.17%	-	0.99%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.27%	1.31%	1.26%	0.64%	-	3.48%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	-	-	0.00%	-	0.32%	0.32%
Grays Harbor Estuary Net	-	-	-	-	0.06%	0.06%
Quinault R Net	-	-	-	-	0.25%	0.25%
Queets R Net	-	-	-	0.13%	0.39%	0.51%
Hoh R Sport	-	-	-	-	2.37%	2.37%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	1.33%	29.66%	30.99%
Hoh R C&S	-	-	-	-	0.45%	0.45%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.01%	0.07%	0.03%	1.34%	1.45%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	-	0.04%	1.03%	0.60%	0.46%	2.13%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	-	-	-	0.17%	0.19%	0.36%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
WA Area 11 Sport (Tacoma)	-	-	-	0.04%	-	0.04%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.18%	0.55%	0.07%	-	0.80%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.51%	0.09%	-	-	0.60%
BC South Central Troll	-	0.20%	0.09%	0.38%	-	0.67%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.25%	5.88%	5.01%	2.47%	-	13.61%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.19%	9.62%	13.18%	5.59%	-	28.59%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	-	0.11%	-	-	0.11%
BC Northern Net	-	0.10%	-	-	-	0.10%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	-	0.11%	0.11%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.13%	-	0.05%	0.18%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.03%	0.04%	0.58%	0.28%	-	0.93%
Johnstone Strait Sport	-	0.08%	0.04%	-	-	0.12%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	-	-	0.08%	0.29%	-	0.36%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	-	-	0.24%	-	-	0.24%
North Georgia Straits Sport	-	-	-	0.12%	-	0.12%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.08%	0.12%	-	-	0.20%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	-	0.17%	-	-	0.17%

Figure 4.115: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Hoh by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.44: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Hoh Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	14,090	6,767	0.4%	51.5%
2005	20,820	11,500	0.9%	43.8%
2006	9,455	4,681	0.8%	49.7%
2007	10,672	6,162	0.9%	41.2%
2008	10,018	6,190	0.3%	37.7%
2009	12,475	3,626	0.4%	70.5%
2010	17,083	9,832	0.2%	42.2%
2011	13,348	8,067	0.8%	38.7%
2012	12,815	5,841	0.8%	53.5%
2013	15,788	7,059	1.2%	53.9%
2014	17,258	7,401	2.0%	55.1%
2015	4,800	2,538	1.3%	45.7%
2016	11,696	9,545	0.4%	17.9%
2017	12,931	7,467	0.4%	41.8%
2018	8,666	6,089	1.1%	28.6%
2019	10,905	6,848	1.0%	36.2%
2020	9,107	7,539	1.6%	15.6%
2021	11,578	11,145	1.7%	2.0%
2022	16,266	13,211	1.1%	17.7%

Figure 4.116: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Hoh MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Hoh MU (Need esc goal for Hoh 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.117: Hoh post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.118: Hoh pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.45: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Hoh from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	8,159.2	5,366.2
2005	7,656.1	8,217.0
2006	6,418.9	2,063.8
2007	5,434.3	4,903.6
2008	4,383.5	3,969.7
2009	9,563.7	12,023.3
2010	7,657.5	11,375.4
2011	11,690.8	12,978.1
2012	14,414.6	8,088.8
2013	8,662.0	9,151.9
2014	9,009.0	9,136.2
2015	5,159.1	2,927.7
2016	2,073.7	5,417.2
2017	6,223.1	6,043.8
2018	5,841.0	3,739.1
2019	7,012.4	5,157.1
2020	4,183.1	5,385.7
2021	3,030.9	7,789.6
2022	4,712.0	11,686.3
2023	6,575.6	NA
2024	4,900.8	NA

4.2.11 Queets

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

Note that Quillayute and Queets values are those from the FRAM database and have not yet been extracted from the relevant TAMM cells for each year

4.2.11.1 Biological and Geographic Description

The Queets consists of a single population of Coho Salmon occupying the Queets River and its major tributary, the Clearwater River. This belongs to the Olympic Peninsula evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) (Weitkamp et al. 1995). It was deemed “not warranted” for listing under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2009).

The freshwater habitat of the consists of a large glacially influenced main river channel (Queets River), a moderate sized rain-fed tributary (Clearwater River), and numerous smaller rain-fed tributaries (Haymes 2008). The Queets River originates in the center of the Olympic Mountains, and flows westward, entering the Pacific Ocean at the northern end of the Quinault Indian Reservation. The Clearwater River originates in the Olympic Mountain foothills to the north of the Queets River and flows southward to the Queets at RM 6.7 from the estuary. Rainfall is high in the , ranging from 100 to 200 inches [254 to 508 cm] a year.

The estuary, like other north Olympic Peninsula coastal rivers is quite small, consisting of a short stretch of river channel that is subject to tidal exchange and enters the Pacific Ocean directly.

Much of the land base in the is managed for commercial timber production, though a thin (1-5 mile wide) strip of Olympic National Park land encompasses the floodplain in the middle reach of the river (Haymes 2008). The upper reach of the river is contained entirely inside of the Olympic National Park, and originates from glacier fields on Mount Olympus. Human development is very limited in this . One small community (Queets) is located adjacent to the river, at the Highway 101 bridge crossing. The river downstream of the Clearwater Road bridge crossing at RM 6.5 [KM 10.5] is within the boundary of the Quinault Reservation.

Figure 4.119: Queets MU Watershed

4.2.11.2 Management Framework

Objectives

The Queets is managed together with other Washington coastal populations, which include all natural and hatchery stocks originating in Washington coastal streams north of the Columbia River to the western Strait of Juan de Fuca (PFMC 2011). Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011).

Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011). The ’s conservation objectives for stocks managed for natural production were based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) spawner escapements established pursuant to the US District Court order in Hoh versus Baldrige. The conservation objectives for the Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute rivers were developed as ranges intended to bracket estimates of MSY escapement. The range reflects inherent uncertainty by using the high estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the low estimate of carrying capacity for the lower bound, and the low estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the high estimate of smolt carrying capacity for the upper end of the range. The ranges were further adjusted upward by 26-184% for risk aversion and habitat considerations. However, annual natural spawning escapement targets may vary from the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of Hoh versus Baldrige and subsequent US District Court orders. After an annual agreement is reached, ocean fishery escapement objectives are established for each river, or region of origin. The agreement includes provisions for treaty Indian allocation requirements and inside non-Indian fishery needs. Agreements on annual spawning targets for Washington coastal Coho Salmon other than those in the FMP are not made every year (PFMC 2011).

The current total ceiling for the natural Coho Salmon population is defined as the maximum rate that will meet the minimum escapement goal of 5,800 when applied to the pre-season ocean abundance forecast (Haymes 2008). The basin is currently managed in US fisheries for a natural fall Coho Salmon escapement goal range of 5,800 to 14,500, and annual egg take objectives at the Salmon River Hatchery. The current ceilings for the Queets Coho Salmon population are listed below.

Queets River natural Coho Salmon, Strait of Juan de Fuca natural Coho Salmon, and Snohomish River natural Coho Salmon were found to meet the criteria for being classified as overfished in the PFMC Review of 2017 Ocean Salmon Fisheries, released in February 2018. Queets River natural Coho Salmon continue to meet the criteria for overfished status (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2023a). The harvest control rule during the rebuilding period for Queets Coho Salmon is the abundance-based stepped harvest rate of:

Table 4.46: Queets ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Allowable Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 7,250	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	7,250 – 9,667	21% – 35%
Abundant/Normal	> 9,667	36% – 60%

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Figure 4.120: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Queets MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.121: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Queets MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

The estimated number of total smolts averaged 286,000 annually from 2000 to 2022, with a high of 444,000 in 2004 and a low of 136,000 in 2022.

Figure 4.122: Estimated number of Queets MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1995 through 2022

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Queets abundance forecast is 12,824, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Abundant” under the 2019 . This results in an allowable total of no more than 55% under the .

The natural forecast was developed by multiplying the 2023 smolt outmigration estimate of 205,963 by the predicted marine survival rate of 7.669%, which results in an abundance prediction of 15,795 . The model uses run reconstructions developed by the Quinault Department of Fisheries (QDFi) as a response, which includes natural and incidental mortality, but does not include estimates of mark-selective fishery mortality. Expansion for mark-selective fishery mortality for the 2024 run abundance prediction was not available at the time of this report but was estimated as mean (post season FRAM / QDFi run reconstruction for run years 2010 to 2020) * abundance prediction for 2023 = 1.095037 * 13,963 = 15,290. Marine survival is typically predicted using a general additive logistic regression model (logit (recruits/smolts) ~ spline (explanatory variable(s)). The explanatory variables are the Pacific Decadal Oscillation index maximum May-August and Biologically Effective Upwelling Transport Index median April-August.

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

The Salmon River Hatchery, located on a tributary to the Queets River and operated by the Quinault Tribe is the primary Coho Salmon adult broodstock collection, incubation, and rearing program in the (Haymes 2008). Coho Salmon juveniles were also periodically reared, coded wire tagged, and released at several other locations in the basin as part of a long-term natural production enhancement program operated by the Quinault tribe, using juveniles produced from wild origin adult Coho Salmon collected with wild broodstock capture programs.

Figure 4.123: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Queets , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.11.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.124: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Queets MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Queets are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.47: Queets MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Fort Bragg Sport	-	0.02%	0.00%	-	-	0.02%
Fort Bragg Troll	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
KMZ Sport	0.01%	-	-	-	-	0.01%
KMZ Troll	0.03%	-	-	-	-	0.03%
Brookings Sport	0.02%	-	0.02%	-	-	0.04%
Brookings Troll	0.00%	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Newport Sport	0.17%	0.68%	0.59%	0.08%	-	1.52%
Newport Troll	0.45%	1.68%	0.91%	0.07%	-	3.11%
Coos Bay Sport	0.09%	0.62%	0.32%	-	-	1.04%
Coos Bay Troll	0.20%	0.55%	0.29%	0.02%	-	1.07%
Tillamook Sport	0.04%	0.39%	0.54%	0.08%	-	1.05%
Tillamook Troll	0.10%	2.17%	1.15%	0.20%	-	3.61%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.20%	0.67%	0.11%	0.04%	1.01%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.11%	0.74%	1.00%	0.19%	-	2.04%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.03%	0.62%	0.91%	0.53%	0.07%	2.17%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.21%	0.26%	0.42%	0.08%	-	0.98%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.21%	0.66%	0.36%	0.15%	-	1.38%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.20%	1.56%	2.10%	1.61%	-	5.47%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.17%	0.03%	0.20%	0.03%	-	0.42%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.23%	0.52%	0.71%	0.05%	-	1.50%
WA Area 3 Sport	0.01%	0.12%	0.07%	0.06%	-	0.25%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.29%	0.45%	0.06%	-	0.80%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.05%	0.49%	0.17%	-	0.71%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.28%	0.70%	0.86%	0.65%	-	2.48%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	-	0.00%	0.00%
Willapa Bay & FW Trib Net	-	-	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
Grays Harbor Sport (2.2)	-	-	0.23%	0.05%	-	0.28%
Grays Harbor Estuary Net	-	-	-	-	0.54%	0.54%
Quinault R Net	-	-	0.03%	1.90%	3.03%	4.96%
Queets R Sport	-	-	-	-	2.69%	2.69%
Clearwater R Sport	-	-	-	-	1.07%	1.07%
Salmon R Sport (Queets)	-	-	-	-	0.08%	0.08%
Queets R Net	-	-	0.08%	6.88%	15.76%	22.72%
Queets R C&S	-	-	-	-	3.00%	3.00%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	0.43%	1.26%	1.69%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.02%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.03%	0.09%	0.14%	0.39%	0.65%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.02%	-	0.02%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.04%	-	0.04%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.05%	0.18%	0.59%	0.41%	0.05%	1.28%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	0.01%	0.05%	-	0.03%	0.05%	0.14%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Non-Treaty Net	-	-	0.00%	0.03%	-	0.03%
WA Area 7B-7C-7D Treaty Net	-	-	0.01%	0.04%	-	0.05%
WA Area 8 Non-Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 8 Treaty Net (Skagit)	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 9 Sport (Admirality Inlet)	0.02%	-	-	-	-	0.02%
WA Area 8A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.08%	-	0.08%
WA Area 8A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.12%	-	0.12%
WA Area 10 Sport (Seattle)	-	-	-	-	0.06%	0.06%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.06%	0.03%	0.08%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.03%	0.02%	0.05%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.09%	0.09%
Area 12-12B Hood Canal Treaty Net	-	-	-	-	0.12%	0.12%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	0.01%	-	0.01%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.44%	0.45%	0.03%	-	0.93%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.03%	0.12%	0.03%	-	0.17%
BC South Central Troll	0.11%	0.50%	0.32%	0.16%	-	1.09%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.09%	4.33%	5.64%	1.96%	-	12.02%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.47%	9.84%	13.23%	3.98%	-	27.51%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	-	0.02%	-	-	0.02%
BC Northern Net	-	0.06%	0.06%	-	-	0.12%
BC Central Net	-	0.08%	-	-	-	0.08%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.17%	0.01%	0.03%	0.21%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	-	0.10%	1.27%	0.32%	-	1.69%
Johnstone Strait Sport	-	0.01%	0.03%	-	-	0.05%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	-	0.06%	0.11%	0.11%	-	0.28%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	-	0.16%	0.12%	0.06%	-	0.34%
North Georgia Straits Sport	-	0.02%	-	-	0.01%	0.02%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.06%	0.03%	-	-	0.08%
SEAK Southeast Troll	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.03%	-	0.07%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%

Figure 4.125: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Queets by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.48: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, and (ER) of the Queets Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	escapement	ER
			Canada	SUS
2004	13,445	6,860	1.2%	47.7%
2005	12,149	6,534	2.3%	43.8%
2006	8,695	5,334	2.2%	36.4%
2007	6,828	4,349	4.2%	31.9%
2008	7,335	4,513	1.4%	36.9%
2009	18,733	10,665	1.9%	41.0%
2010	20,070	12,558	0.9%	36.4%
2011	15,170	9,084	3.1%	36.9%
2012	9,194	4,615	3.1%	46.7%
2013	9,932	6,141	4.2%	33.7%
2014	12,903	7,455	4.2%	37.8%
2015	2,748	1,750	5.6%	30.6%
2016	6,070	4,556	1.5%	23.3%
2017	6,797	5,242	2.4%	20.3%
2018	3,446	2,209	4.7%	31.1%
2019	3,944	2,316	6.5%	34.7%
2020	5,126	2,983	3.5%	38.2%
2021	5,261	4,751	3.5%	6.0%
2022	17,811	12,444	3.5%	26.5%

Figure 4.126: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Queets MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Queets MU (Need esc goal for Queets 30,000 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.127: Queets post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.128: Queets pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.49: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Queets from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	18,619.5	13,444.7
2005	17,232.7	12,148.8
2006	8,392.8	8,695.3
2007	13,634.8	6,828.0
2008	10,391.7	7,335.4
2009	31,668.8	18,733.0
2010	22,028.8	20,070.2
2011	13,398.4	15,169.6
2012	37,638.9	9,193.6
2013	24,797.8	9,931.7
2014	10,431.0	12,902.9
2015	7,593.0	2,748.3
2016	3,519.2	6,070.1
2017	6,591.6	6,797.0
2018	7,018.9	3,446.3
2019	11,204.4	3,944.1
2020	7,899.6	5,126.2
2021	3,948.7	5,261.4
2022	18,324.4	17,810.8
2023	12,527.5	NA
2024	12,944.3	NA

4.2.12 Grays Harbor

This description was prepared by U.S. members of the Coho Technical Committee.

4.2.12.1 Biological and Geographic Description

This consists of all tributaries to Grays Harbor, including the Chehalis and Humptulips river basins. Coho Salmon inhabiting these basins are treated as a single population under the .

The Grays Harbor belongs to the Southwest Washington Coast (SWWC) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), which was formerly part of the Lower Columbia River/Southwest Washington Coast ESU (Weitkamp et al. 1995). Since the ESU was split in two and the Lower Columbia ESU listed, the SWWC ESU is currently of “undetermined” status for listing under the US Endangered Species Act (NOAA 2009).

The freshwater habitat of the consists of two major river basins (Chehalis and Humptulips), and several smaller independent tributaries (Haymes 2008). The freshwater tributaries in the region are primarily rain-fed. The Chehalis River is the largest drainage in the , with a basin area of 2,114 mi² [5,475 km²]. The Chehalis basin drains the southern end of the Olympic mountain range and the Chehalis Prairie region near Centralia, entering the eastern side of the Grays Harbor estuary at the city of Aberdeen. The other significant river basin in the is the Humptulips River, with a basin area of 250 mi² [647 km²]. The Humptulips River drains the southwestern end of the Olympic Mountain range and enters the northern side of Grays Harbor. The upper basin tributaries of these two rivers receive snowmelt input from the main Olympic mountain range in the winter and spring. The lower elevation tributaries in the region are largely rain-fed, with corresponding large changes in average discharge between the winter and summer periods. Several small tributaries enter the southern end of Grays Harbor. Total area for the entire Grays Harbor freshwater habitat is 2,550 mi² [6,604 km²].

The Grays Harbor is unique among Washington Coast for having an extremely large estuary. Because of this, Coho Salmon moving from freshwater to marine habitats are able to gradually transition between completely fresh and completely salt waters over a geographically long gradient, rather than the abrupt transition in other coastal (e.g., Quillayute, Hoh, Queets).

Much of the land base in the is managed for commercial timber production, though the upper reaches of some the longer tributaries in the region originate in Olympic National Park (Haymes 2008). Agricultural activities are a prevalent land use in the lower and mid-Chehalis River basin. Two major regional urban areas, Aberdeen and Hoquiam are located at the mouth of the Chehalis River. Numerous other small to medium-sized communities are located in the Chehalis River basin. The Humptulips River basin has much more limited human development, with scattered residential and agricultural development in the lower valley.

Grays Harbor provides extensive estuarine habitat. However, water quality problems resulting from human activities have periodically impacted salmonid survival rates in Chehalis River estuary (Seiler 1989). Shellfish farming and harvesting activities are present in the estuary.

Figure 4.129: Grays Harbor MU Watershed

4.2.12.2 Management Framework

Objectives

The Grays Harbor is managed with together with other Washington coastal populations, which include all natural and hatchery stocks originating in Washington coastal streams north of the Columbia River to the western Strait of Juan de Fuca (PFMC 2011). Management goals for Washington coastal Coho Salmon stocks include achieving natural spawning escapement objectives and treaty Indian allocation requirements (PFMC 2011).

The ’s conservation objectives for stocks managed for natural production were based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY) spawner escapements established pursuant to the US District Court order in Hoh versus Baldrige. The conservation objectives for the Queets, Hoh, and Quillayute Rivers were developed as ranges intended to bracket estimates of MSY escapement. The range reflects inherent uncertainty by using the high estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the low estimate of carrying capacity for the lower bound, and the low estimate of recruits-per-spawner and the high estimate of smolt carrying capacity for the upper end of the range. The ranges were further adjusted upward by 26-184% for risk aversion and habitat considerations. However, annual natural spawning escapement targets may vary from the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) conservation objectives if agreed to by WDFW and the treaty Indian tribes under the provisions of Hoh versus Baldrige and subsequent US District Court orders. After an annual agreement is reached, ocean fishery escapement objectives are established for each river, or region of origin. The agreement includes provisions for treaty Indian allocation requirements and inside non-Indian fishery needs. Agreements on annual spawning targets for Washington coastal Coho Salmon other than those in the FMP are not made every year (PFMC 2011).

The current total ceiling for the Grays Harbor natural Coho Salmon population is defined as the maximum rate that will meet a 35,400 escapement goal when applied to the pre-season ocean abundance forecast (Haymes 2008). The basin is currently managed in US fisheries for an escapement goal of 35,400. The current ceilings for the Grays Harbor Coho Salmon population are listed below.

Table 4.50: Current Grays Harbor ocean abundance reference breakpoints and maximum total by and status categories.

Status(/)	Ocean Abundance Reference Breakpoint	Total Exploitation Rate
Low/Critical	< 44,250	Up to 20%
Moderate/Low	44,250 – 58,000	21% – 35%
Abundant/Normal	> 58,000	36% – 60%

Stock Assessment

Indicator Stocks

Figure 4.130: Number of wild fish caught, tagged, and released by clip status, within the Grays Harbor MU over brood years 1983 through 2020.

Figure 4.131: Total number of coded-wire-tagged hatchery coho Salmon released, by clip status, within the Grays Harbor MU for brood years 1983 through 2020.

Forecast Methods

The estimated number of total smolts averaged 2.5 million annually from 2000 to 2022, with a high of 3.6 million in 2017 and a low of 203,000 in 2002.

Figure 4.132: Estimated number of Grays Harbor MU wild Coho Salmon smolts outmigrants, years 1995 through 2022

ToDo Need to check what MSR to use (or both). Looks like could use Bingham Creek or Black River

Figure 4.133: Estimated marine survival rates for Black River Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Figure 4.134: Estimated marine survival rates for Bingham Creek Coho Salmon, (data provided by M. Litz, WDFW).

Most Recent Abundance Forecast and Methods

This information is available in the ’s 2024 Preseason Report 1 (Pacific Fishery Management Council 2024c) and (Litz 2024).

The 2024 Grays Harbor abundance forecast is 74,851, resulting in a classification of the stock abundance as “Abundant” under the 2019 . This results in an allowable total of no more than 57% under the .

This forecast is the sum of the Chehalis River natural, Humptulips River natural, and South Bay tributary natural forecasts. An Coho Salmon marine survival prediction was developed by dividing the Quinault Department of Fisheries prediction of Queets Coho Salmon marine survival by the natural mortality rate of 1.23169%. The Chehalis wild Coho Salmon smolt production estimate was developed by scaling the 2023 Queets River natural Coho Salmon smolt production to the Chehalis River production based on the relationship between the Backward ocean abundances of Queets and Chehalis natural Coho Salmon abundances during the past 15 years. The Humptulips and South Bay tributary forecasts are based on recruit densities scaled from Clearwater and Chehalis basins, respectively.

The Grays Harbor is managed differently than other U.S. , in that the overfishing limit (OFL) is defined in terms of spawner escapement that includes hatchery origin fish that are projected to spawn in natural areas. Potential Grays Harbor Coho Salmon natural area spawner abundance was derived by adding the current forecast of natural origin Coho Salmon abundance of 74,851, to the predicted abundance of hatchery origin Coho Salmon spawning in natural areas. The forecast of naturally spawning hatchery origin Coho is 7,025 and was calculated by multiplying the hatchery Coho Salmon abundance forecast of 68,200, by the most recent 5-year average stray rate (2018-2022 average = 0.103). Annual stray rates were estimated by dividing the number of hatchery origin spawners in natural areas by the total hatchery origin escapement.

Escapement Monitoring

Fishery Monitoring

Enhancement

There are three major hatchery Coho Salmon production programs located in the with adult collection and juvenile rearing facilities, all of which are operated by WDFW (Haymes 2008). Humptulips Hatchery is located at the mouth of Stevens Creek on the Humptulips River at RM 22.5 from the estuary. Bingham Creek Hatchery is located at the mouth of Bingham Creek on the Satsop River at RM 17.5 (the Satsop River enters the Chehalis River at RM 20.2 from the estuary). Van Winkle (Aberdeen) Hatchery is located on Van Winkle Cr., a tributary to the lower Chehalis River. Coho Salmon are also reared and released at the WDFW Skookumchuck and Eight Creek Hatcheries, which are located on tributaries to the Chehalis R. These programs typically use juvenile Coho Salmon production obtained from the Bingham Creek facility.

There are up to several net pen rearing projects operating in the Chehalis River and Grays Harbor estuaries each year, maintained by local public sport fishery enhancement groups. These programs typically use juvenile production obtained from the WDFW Bingham Creek facility. Additionally, Mayr Brothers Ponds, a privately operated facility located on the Wishkah River, has adult collection and juvenile acclimation facilities that are periodically used for the collection and production of Coho Salmon (Haymes 2008).

Figure 4.135: Hatchery production of Coho Salmon released within the Grays Harbor , brood years 1983 through 2020.

4.2.12.3 Management Performance

Forecast Evaluation

Figure 4.136: Comparison of preseason abundance predictions with the post-season estimates for the Gray Harbor MU.

Fishery Mortality and Escapement

The base period for the FRAM defines the temporal and spatial distributions of salmon fishing mortalities from each . The current FRAM base period for Coho Salmon includes catch years 1986-1992. During this period, fishing effort, tagging, and fishery sampling of Coho Salmon was high, allowing relatively fine-scale discrimination between salmon distributions. Coded-wire-tag codes used during the base period for the Grays Harbor are provided in the Appendix and average base period by individual fisheries are listed below.

Table 4.51: Grays Harbor MU average annual (total) and time period specific ERs used in the current FRAM base period.

Fishery	Jan-Jun	Jul	Aug	Sept	Oct-Dec	Total
Fort Bragg Troll	0.00%	0.00%	-	-	-	0.00%
KMZ Sport	0.00%	-	-	-	-	0.00%
KMZ Troll	-	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
Brookings Sport	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%	-	-	0.02%
Brookings Troll	0.01%	0.01%	0.01%	-	-	0.03%
Newport Sport	0.05%	0.21%	0.32%	0.04%	-	0.62%
Newport Troll	0.07%	0.53%	0.26%	0.03%	-	0.89%
Coos Bay Sport	0.02%	0.15%	0.10%	0.03%	-	0.29%
Coos Bay Troll	0.08%	0.27%	0.10%	0.03%	-	0.48%
Tillamook Sport	0.01%	0.11%	0.22%	0.08%	-	0.42%
Tillamook Troll	0.02%	0.48%	0.58%	0.08%	-	1.16%
Col. Rvr. Buoy 10 Sport	-	0.08%	0.19%	0.13%	-	0.40%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Sport	0.01%	0.24%	0.40%	0.12%	-	0.77%
WA Area 1 & Astoria Troll	0.01%	0.11%	0.41%	0.79%	0.11%	1.44%
WA Area 2 Non-Treaty Troll	0.02%	0.04%	0.18%	0.05%	-	0.29%
WA Area 2 Treaty Troll	0.02%	0.10%	0.15%	0.10%	-	0.37%
WA Area 2 Sport	0.02%	0.25%	0.87%	2.32%	-	3.45%
WA Area 3 Non-Treaty Troll	0.03%	0.00%	0.05%	0.06%	-	0.14%
WA Area 3 Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.06%	0.16%	0.11%	-	0.38%
WA Area 3 Sport	-	0.01%	0.03%	0.00%	-	0.04%
WA Area 4 Sport	-	0.05%	0.09%	0.03%	-	0.18%
WA Area 4/4B Non-Treaty Troll	0.00%	0.01%	0.24%	0.20%	0.01%	0.47%
WA Area 4/4B Treaty Troll	0.04%	0.17%	0.42%	0.77%	0.03%	1.45%
WA Area 5-6-6C Troll	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.02%	0.02%
Willapa Bay & FW Trib Net	-	-	-	0.25%	0.73%	0.98%
Grays Harbor Sport (2.2)	-	-	0.05%	0.72%	0.26%	1.02%
Grays Harbor Estuary Net	0.08%	-	-	0.85%	10.14%	11.07%
Humptulips R Sport	-	-	-	-	5.27%	5.27%
Lower Chehalis R Net	-	-	-	0.74%	21.15%	21.89%
Chehalis R Sport	-	-	-	-	1.77%	1.77%
Humptulips R Net	-	-	-	-	34.60%	34.60%
Upper Chehalis R Net	-	-	-	-	2.36%	2.36%
Wynochee R Sport	-	-	-	-	0.29%	0.29%
Hoquiam R Sport	-	-	-	-	4.93%	4.93%
Wishkah R Sport	-	-	-	-	9.64%	9.64%
Satsop R Sport	-	-	-	-	1.47%	1.47%
Quinault R Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.14%	0.16%
Queets R Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.01%
Hoh R Net	-	-	-	0.00%	-	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Non-Treaty Net	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WA Area 4B-5-6C Treaty Net	-	0.05%	0.03%	0.01%	0.22%	0.30%
WA Area 7-7A Non-Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%	0.01%
WA Area 7-7A Treaty Net	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 5 Sport (Sekiu)	0.01%	0.02%	0.18%	0.22%	0.10%	0.53%
WA Area 6 Sport (Port Angeles)	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	0.01%	0.02%
WA Area 10 Non-Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.02%	0.01%	0.03%
WA Area 10 Treaty Net (Seattle)	-	-	-	0.01%	0.00%	0.02%
WA Area 11 Non-Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	-	0.01%	0.01%
WA Area 11 Treaty Net (E/W Pass)	-	-	-	-	0.00%	0.00%
Johnstone Strait Troll	-	0.00%	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.01%
BC Northern Troll	-	0.20%	0.42%	0.18%	-	0.80%
BC North Central Troll	-	0.31%	0.03%	0.01%	-	0.36%
BC South Central Troll	0.08%	0.45%	0.26%	0.09%	-	0.88%
NW Vancouver Island Troll	0.20%	2.54%	2.71%	1.47%	-	6.93%
SW Vancouver Island Troll	0.38%	5.73%	5.30%	1.32%	-	12.72%
Georgia Straits Troll	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%
BC Northern Net	-	0.04%	0.03%	-	-	0.06%
BC Central Net	-	0.07%	-	-	-	0.07%
SW Vancouver Island Net	-	-	-	0.02%	0.02%	0.03%
Johnstone Straits Net	-	-	0.15%	0.03%	0.01%	0.20%
Fraser R Gill Net	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
BC Juan de Fuca Net	0.00%	0.08%	0.36%	0.10%	-	0.55%
Johnstone Strait Sport	-	0.01%	0.02%	-	-	0.03%
BC Northern Sport	-	-	0.01%	0.00%	-	0.01%
BC Central Sport	-	-	0.00%	-	-	0.00%
BC Juan de Fuca Sport	-	-	0.03%	0.05%	0.11%	0.18%
West Coast Vanc Is Sport	0.16%	0.03%	0.02%	0.02%	-	0.23%
North Georgia Straits Sport	0.01%	-	-	0.03%	-	0.03%
South Georgia Straits Sport	-	0.01%	-	-	-	0.01%
SEAK Southwest Troll	-	0.01%	0.06%	0.00%	-	0.07%
SEAK Southeast Troll	-	0.00%	0.02%	-	-	0.03%
SEAK Northwest Troll	-	0.02%	0.11%	0.05%	-	0.18%
SEAK Northeast Troll	-	-	0.01%	-	-	0.01%
Southeast Alaska Net	-	0.01%	0.11%	-	-	0.12%

Figure 4.137: Post-season estimates of fishery mortality for the Grays Harbor by mark-selective (MSF) and non-selective (NS) fisheries over catch years 1998 through 2021. These estimates are combined US and Canadian harvest impacts.

Table 4.52: Historical summary of annual total abundance (January age-3 without natural mortality), adult escapement, marine survival (Bingham Creek), and (ER) of the Grays Harbor Management Unit; since 2004.

catch_year	abundance	marine_survival	escapement	ER
				Canada	SUS
2004	68,872	2.1%	40,309	0.8%	40.2%
2005	73,009	3.7%	44,089	1.7%	37.6%
2006	26,881	1.5%	14,400	1.3%	44.9%
2007	34,718	2.8%	23,600	2.4%	29.1%
2008	51,708	2.3%	36,751	1.1%	27.4%
2009	113,275	10.2%	77,314	1.1%	30.3%
2010	117,353	7.7%	91,899	0.4%	20.9%
2011	86,208	6.9%	52,648	1.4%	37.1%
2012	103,923	5.1%	54,958	2.0%	44.9%
2013	80,323	2.5%	44,665	3.1%	40.8%
2014	152,912	7.9%	84,262	2.1%	42.2%
2015	31,714	1.8%	16,333	2.5%	45.7%
2016	35,331	3.5%	31,266	0.6%	10.6%
2017	37,344	3.8%	25,278	1.2%	30.8%
2018	60,777	4.3%	47,478	2.3%	19.2%
2019	50,994	3.2%	30,807	2.4%	36.8%
2020	31,581	3.6%	22,562	1.8%	26.5%
2021	77,315	7.8%	59,990	1.9%	20.2%
2022	79,356	7.0%	56,534	1.5%	27.0%
2023	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA

Figure 4.138: Total exploitation rate (A) and escapement (B) of Grays Harbor MU by country, catch years 1986 through 2022. Dashed line indicates escapement goal for the Grays Harbor MU (35,400 individuals).

Historical Overview of Status of Management Unit

Figure 4.139: Grays Harbor post-season estimates of ocean age-3 abundances, escapement, and harvest for catch years 2004 through 2022. The graphs include dashed trend lines and the vertical dotted lines highlight catch year 2010)

Figure 4.140: Grays Harbor pre- and post-season abundance status for catch years 2004 through 2021

Table 4.53: Preseason and post-season abundance estimates for Grays Harbor from 2004 onwards.

catch_year	abund_preseason	abund_postseason
2004	116,148.0	68,872.5
2005	89,654.6	73,009.2
2006	66,230.6	26,881.2
2007	58,434.5	34,718.0
2008	44,142.0	51,708.5
2009	59,459.0	113,275.1
2010	68,128.5	117,353.2
2011	89,347.9	86,208.2
2012	150,724.3	103,922.5
2013	197,371.8	80,323.4
2014	106,674.0	152,912.3
2015	139,781.2	31,714.1
2016	35,812.2	35,330.9
2017	50,125.7	37,344.5
2018	42,486.6	60,777.4
2019	71,782.9	50,993.6
2020	50,096.9	31,580.6
2021	44,932.9	77,315.3
2022	120,833.3	79,355.8
2023	103,210.0	NA
2024	75,102.8	NA

5 Members

Membership of the Joint Coho Technical Committee

Canadian Members	United States Members
Ms. Dawn Lewis (Co-Chair), CDFO	Dr. Gary S. Morishima (Co-Chair), QIN
Mr. Richard Bailey,	Mr. John Brady, NOAA
Mr. Roger Dunlop, MMFN	Ms. Carrie Cook-Tabor, USFWS
Mr. Kristopher Hein, CDFO	Dr. Collin Edwards, WDFW
Ms. Sara Martin, CDFO	Mr. Tyler Garber, WDFW
Mr. Michael O’Brien, CDFO	Dr. Diego Holmgren, TUL
Mr. Kevin Pellet, CDFO	Ms. Cassandra R. Leeman, ODFW
Ms. Ashlee Prevost,	Dr. Marisa Litz, WDFW
	Ms. Stephanie Thurner, NWIFC
	Dr. Laurie Weitkamp, NMFS

6 Acronyms

Acronym	Definition	URL
ABM	Abundance-Based Management
B.C.	British Columbia
BkFRAM	Backwards FRAM
BY	Brood Year
CDFO	Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans	https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/index-eng.htm
CFNC	Canadian First Nations Caucus
CoTC	Coho Joint Technical Committee	https://www.psc.org/about-us/structure/committees/technical/coho/
CU	Conservation Unit	https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/1ac00a39-4770-443d-8a6b-9656c06df6a3
CWT	Coded-Wire Tag	https://www.nmt.us/cwt/
DIT	Double-Index Tag
EDT	Electronic Tag Detection
ENSO	El Niño-Southern Oscillation	https://www.climate.gov/enso
ER	Exploitation Rate
ESA	U.S. Endangered Species Act	https://www.fws.gov/international/laws-treaties-agreements/us-conservation-laws/endangered-species-act.html
ESU	Evolutionarily Significant Unit	https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/assets/4/6878_09172014_172219_Waples.1995.pdf
FMP	Fisheries Management Plan
FRAFS	Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat	https://www.frafs.ca/
FRAM	Fishery Regulation and Assessment Model	https://framverse.github.io/fram_doc/
HC	Hood Canal
IFMP	Integrated Fisheries Management Plan	https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/ifmp-eng.html#Salmon
IFR	Interior Fraser River
iREC	Internet-based Recreational Fishery	https://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/rec/irec-info-eng.html
JA3	January Age-3
LFFA	Lower Fraser Fishery Alliance	https://www.lffa.ca/
LWFR	Lower Fraser River
MFMT	Maximum Fishing Mortality Threshold
MMFN	Mowachaht-Muchalaht First Nation	https://www.yuquot.ca/
MSA	Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act	https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/magnuson-stevens-fishery-conservation-and-management-act
MSF	Mark-Selective Fishery	https://wdfw.wa.gov/sites/default/files/about/commission/meetings/2018/08/aug0918_fc_selective_fisheries.pdf
MSH	Maximum Sustainable Harvest	https://www.pcouncil.org/fact-sheet-annual-catch-limits-and-other-management-thresholds/#:~:text=The%20overfishing%20limit%20(OFL)%20is,the%20FMSY%20harvest%20rate.
MSM	Mixed-Stock Model
MU	Management Unit
NMFS	National Marine Fisheries Service	https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/
NOF	North of Falcon	https://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/management/north-falcon
NSF	Non-Selective Fishery
NTC	Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council	https://nuuchahnulth.org/
NWIFC	Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission	https://nwifc.org/
OA3	Ocean Age-3
ODFW	Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife	https://www.dfw.state.or.us/
OFL	Overfishing Limit	https://www.pcouncil.org/fact-sheet-annual-catch-limits-and-other-management-thresholds/#:~:text=The%20overfishing%20limit%20(OFL)%20is,the%20FMSY%20harvest%20rate.
OR	Oregon
PDO	Pacific Decadal Oscillation	https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/pdo/
PEF	Production Expansion Factor
PFMC	Pacific Fisheries Management Council U.S.	https://www.pcouncil.org/
PS	Puget Sound	https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound
PSC	Pacific Salmon Commission	https://www.psc.org/
PST	Pacific Salmon Treaty	https://www.psc.org/publications/pacific-salmon-treaty/
QIN	Quinault Indian Nation	http://www.quinaultindiannation.com/
RMIS	Regional Mark Information System	https://www.rmpc.org/
RMISD	Regional Mark Information System Database (U.S.)	https://www.rmpc.org/
RMPC	Regional Mark Processing Center	https://www.rmpc.org/
RRTERM	Terminal Area Run Reconstruction Program
SCMP	Southern Coho Management Plan	https://www.psc.org/publications/pacific-salmon-treaty/
SRSC	Skagit River System Cooperative
SIT	Single Index Tag
SJDF	Strait of Juan de Fuca
SUQ	Suquamish Tribe	https://suquamish.nsn.us/
TT	Tulalip Tribes	https://www.tulaliptribes-nsn.gov/
U.S.	United States
UFFCA	Upper Fraser Fisheries Conservation Alliance	https://www.upperfraser.ca/
USFWS	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service	https://www.fws.gov/
WA	Washington
WCVI	West Coast of Vancouver Island
WDFW	Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife	https://wdfw.wa.gov/
WSP	Wild Salmon Policy (Canada)
WRIA	Water Resource Inventory Area (U.S.)

7 Glossary

Term	Definition
Abundance-Based Management (ABM)	A management framework that constrains exploitation rates, based on a categorical abundance forecast (abundant, moderate, low) for naturally-spawning Coho Management Units. The purpose is to provide more protection when the status of the fish is low and the conservation need is greatest, and more harvest opportunity when abundance is high. Exploitation rate caps are specified in the Pacific Salmon Treaty Southern Coho Agreement.
Base Period (FRAM)	The FRAM base period is a period chosen to represent average temporal and geographic distributions of Coho Salmon coastwide. The base period was developed by summarizing coded-wire-tag information from a continuous time period containing a sufficient number of CWT releases and fishery recoveries. The current Coho base period is comprised of CWT recoveries from catch years 1986–1992. The Mixed-stock Model (MSM) and cohort reconstruction methods were used to estimate base period exploitation rates and other parameters, such as base period cohort sizes and fishery compositions, for all FRAM stocks and fisheries by time step. The base period is made up of the averages of these estimates over the catch years 1986 through 1992. Using these base period parameters allows FRAM to predict the stock composition, exploitation rates, and escapements of future fisheries when provided with forecasts of abundance and fishery mortalities.
Break point	A Management Unit-specific ocean age-3 abundance level that determines the categorical status of a stock (i.e., abundant, moderate, low).
Brood Year (BY)	The year in which the majority of parent fish spawned and deposited fertilized eggs.
By-catch	Incidental or unintentional catch of non-target stocks or species.
Catch	The number of fish that are retained in a fishery.
Coded-Wire Tag (CWT)	A small piece of magnetized stainless-steel wire that is injected into the snout of a juvenile salmon (usually hatchery stock). Each tag is 0.25 mm in diameter and typically 1.1 mm long and is etched with a code that identifies its specific release group. Each code is associated with release information, including date and location of release, hatchery, stock, fish size, and number of fish tagged with that same code (referred to as a release group). Tags are typically recovered from returning adults through fishery and escapement sampling. Release and recovery Information is stored in the U.S. in the Regional Mark Information System's (RMIS) Release database and in Canada’s Mark Recovery Program.
Cohort	A group of fish belonging to the same brood year.
Cohort Abundance	For each stock unit, an annual abundance is obtained from a regional expert, typically in the form of an ocean age-3 run size (pre-fishing age-3 abundance in the ocean after natural mortality has been subtracted). In a pre-season context these abundances come from annual forecasts, whereas in a post-season context the abundances are derived from estimates of actual returns. For Coho, an initial stock abundance is needed for adult fish (age-3) by mark status.
Cohort Reconstruction or Cohort Analysis	Cohort reconstruction is a method commonly used in salmon stock assessment for estimation of exploitation rates. The basic principle of cohort reconstruction is the sequential estimation of a cohort’s abundance from the end of the cohort’s life span, when abundance is zero, to a specified earlier age (commonly age-3 for Coho). A full cohort reconstruction can be completed only once the cohort’s life span has ended. Age-specific escapement and harvest data are required and, in general, the natural mortality rates are assumed.
Co-management	The collaborative process between co-managers–tribal governments and state governments on the West Coast. Using scientific information, the co-managers make decisions about the management of fisheries to ensure that the fisheries meet legal requirements, treaty fishing rights, and conservation goals.
Command Files	The files used in the Fisheries Regulation Assessment Model containing all the necessary input parameters to run the model, such as forecasted abundance estimates and fishery regulations. A separate command file is developed for each FRAM run.
Conservation Unit (CU)	Salmon populations that have been identified as distinct units of biodiversity under the Canadian Wild Salmon Policy (see Holtby and Ciruna 2007). A Conservation Unit (CU) is a group of wild Pacific salmon sufficiently isolated from other groups that, if extirpated, is very unlikely to recolonize naturally within an acceptable timeframe, such as a human lifetime or a specified number of salmon generations.
Double-Index Tag (DIT)	Paired groups of tagged fish, each tagged with separate CWT tag code, used to determine differential exploitation rates on marked and unmarked fish subjected to mark-selective fisheries. Both groups are presumed identical except that one group is externally marked (adipose fin clipped) and one group is unmarked (not adipose fin clipped).
El Niño Index (ONI)	The Oceanic Niño Index (ONI) is an index for tracking the ocean part of ENSO, the El Niño-Southern Oscillation climate pattern. The ONI is a rolling 3-month average temperature anomaly in the surface waters of the east-central tropical Pacific, near the International Dateline. Index values of +0.5 or higher indicate El Niño. Values of -0.5 or lower indicate La Niña.
Electronic Tag Detection (ETD)	The use of a handheld wand or tunnel type detector that can sense the magnetized coded-wire tag within a fish's snout.
Endangered Species Act (U.S.)	The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is the primary law in the United States for protecting critically important species that are at risk of extinction. Under the ESA, the federal government has the responsibility to protect these species and their critical habitats. NOAA Fisheries is responsible for endangered and threatened salmon.
Enhancement	Use of hatcheries, spawning channels, lake fertilization or habitat restoration to increase the survival rate or production of salmon at some stage of its life.
Escapement (Spawning Escapement)	The number of adult salmon that escape all fisheries and other forms of mortality to return to a hatchery or stream to spawn.
Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU)	Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a group of Pacific salmon populations that represent an important component of the evolutionary legacy of the species and are therefore treated as a single “species”.
Exclusive Economic Zone	The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area from 3 to 200 nautical miles offshore of coastal states and is classified as federal waters. In the EEZ, the U.S. has special rights about the exploration and use of marine resources, which includes energy production from water and wind, and fisheries.
Exploitation Rate (ER)	Expressed as a percentage, the proportion of the total return of adult salmon in a given year that die as a result of fishing activity. Mortalities include landed catch and incidental mortalities.
Exploitation Rate Cap	The maximum exploitation rate an MU can be subjected to given its categorical abundance status. Under the ABM, allowable exploitation rate is shared by Canada and the U.S.
Fisheries Management	Fisheries management is a process that relies on science, management approaches, enforcement, partnerships, and public participation. Fisheries management uses scientific information (e.g., number of fish caught, types of fish caught, life cycle knowledge) and input from fishing communities to help guide management decisions and conservation objectives.
Fisheries Management Plan (FMP)	The set of fisheries planned to distribute exploitation rates amongst fisheries and time periods each year. These are termed Integrated Fisheries Management Plans in Canada.
Fishery	A fishery is an activity leading to the harvesting of fish and can be specified by the species of fish caught, people involved, location, method of fishing, and purpose of the activities. Fish caught in a fishery can be for commercial, recreational, or tribal and ceremonial purposes.
Fishery Regulation Assessment Model (FRAM)	A model used to estimate the MU- and fishery-specific impacts. The Forwards FRAM projects MU-specific mortalities and escapements under proposed fishery regimes given pre-season forecasts. The Backwards Coho FRAM estimates unspecified MU abundances using estimates of escapements and fishing mortalities. It includes 246 stocks, 198 fisheries, and 5 time steps.
Fry	Salmon that have emerged from gravel, completed yolk absorption, remained in freshwater streams, and are less than a few months old.
FSC (Canada)	First Nations' fishery for food, social, and ceremonial use.
Harvest	The term harvest refers to the total number of fish caught and kept from an area or fishery during a period of time.
Incidental mortality	Mortality incurred during fishing in addition to landed catch. For example, some fish die as a result of being caught and released.
Indicator stock	A coded-wire-tagged surrogate stock that is used to make inferences for a particular MU. For example, a CWT release from a hatchery stock may be used to estimate the distribution and magnitude of fishing mortalities.
Integrated Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP)	These Canadian plans identify the main objectives and requirements for Pacific fisheries and outline the management to achieve these objectives. IFMPs provide a common understanding of the basic rules for the sustainable management of the fisheries resource, and communicate basic information about fish stocks and our fisheries.
Interception	Interception occurs when a salmon from one state or country is caught in another state or country's fisheries. As salmon grow and mature in the Pacific Ocean, they travel along the West Coast and across international borders. Salmon that originate in U.S. streams may migrate through Canadian waters, where they may be caught in Canadian fisheries. Salmon from Oregon streams can be caught in Washington fisheries.
January age-3 abundance (JA3)	The estimated abundance of fish of age-3 (adults) in January before any fisheries start. January age-3 abundance is estimated as fishing mortality plus escapement plus natural mortality.
La Niña
Landed catch	Fish that are caught and kept (see Incidental mortality)
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA)	The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary law that governs fisheries management in the federal marine waters (3-200 miles offshore) of the United States. The goal of the MSA is to encourage the long-term biological and economic sustainability of marine fisheries.
Management Unit (MU)	Under the PST Southern Coho agreement, a geographically-based aggregate of salmon populations, that is managed under a single set of exploitation rate caps.
Mark-Selective Fishery (MSF)	A fishery that requires marked fish (i.e., those with adipose fin clips) and unmarked fish (those with intact adipose fins) to be differentially retained (e.g., marked fish kept, unmarked fish released).
Maximum Sustainable Harvest (MSH)	An estimate of the largest average annual catch or yield that can be continuously taken over a long period from a stock under prevailing ecological and environmental conditions.
Mixed-Stock Model	A model used to estimate the cohort abundances in mixed stock fisheries using coded-wire tags and estimates of catch (see Production Expansion Factors).
Naturally Produced	Originated from spawning in the natural environment, as opposed to spawned in a hatchery. Often considered “wild”.
Non-retention fisheries	Fisheries in which a particular group of fish are not allowed to be kept (e.g., due to species or external marks) (see Retention Fisheries)
Non-selective fisheries (NSF)	Fisheries allowed to retain both marked (adipose fin clipped) and unmarked fish (see Mark-selective fishery).
North of Falcon	Each year state, federal, and tribal fishery managers gather to plan the Northwest's recreational and commercial salmon fisheries. This series of meetings – involving representatives from federal, state and tribal governments and recreational and commercial fishing industries – is known as the North of Falcon process. The North of Falcon planning process coincides with the March and April meetings of the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PMFC), the federal authority responsible for setting ocean salmon seasons 3 to 200 miles off the Pacific coast. In addition to the two PFMC meetings, the states of Washington and Oregon and the Treaty Tribes sponsor additional meetings to discuss alternative fishing seasons that meet conservation and allocation objectives. Fishery managers generally refer to the entire set of pre-season meetings as North of Falcon. The name refers to Cape Falcon in northern Oregon, which marks the southern border of active management for Washington salmon stocks.
Ocean Age-3 Abundance (OA3)	Total number of fish that are harvested (including incidental mortality) plus those that escape to spawn (also referred to as “cohort abundance” or “ocean recruits”). Natural mortality is not included. This abundance status of a Management Unit is based upon this estimate of abundance.
Overfishing Limit (OFL)	The overfishing limit (OFL) is the maximum amount of a stock that can be caught in a year without resulting in overfishing. Groundfish OFLs for assessed stocks are typically determined by multiplying the estimated abundance of the exploitable biomass of a stock by the FMSY harvest rate. There are also methods for determining OFLs for unassessed stocks. Setting OFLs is a scientific (as opposed to policy) determination made by the Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC). OFLs are set for every actively managed stock or stock complex.
Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)	The PDO describes the pattern of sea surface temperatures around the North Pacific Ocean north of 20°N. During a "warm", or "positive", phase, the west Pacific becomes cooler and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a "cool", or "negative", phase, the opposite pattern occurs. The index was originally described by Mantua et al. 1997 (Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. 78 (6): 1069–79.)
Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC)	A joint Canada/U.S. commission established under the Pacific Salmon Treaty to oversee the implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST)	A treaty between Canada and the United States concerning the conservation, management, restoration, and enhancement of pacific salmon resources.
Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC)	Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) is a non‐regulatory agency that serves Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. PSMFC (headquartered in Portland) administers salmon disaster relief funds, provides a communication exchange between the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and provides information in the form of data services for various fisheries.
Production Expansion Factor (PEF)	A scalar that represents the number of fish in a population from a single CWT recovery.
Rebuilding	The process of rebuilding an overfished stock. For salmon, rebuilding usually takes the form of reduced harvest limits.
Reference Point	A Management Unit-specific ocean age-3 abundance level that determines the categorical status of a stock (i.e., abundant, moderate, low).
Regional Mark Information System (RMIS)	Database containing data on salmonid releases, recoveries in fisheries and escapement, and estimated catch by fishery and time period.
Retention fisheries	Fisheries in which fish of a particular group are allowed to be kept (see Non-retention fisheries).
Return year	The year in which fish would normally return to spawn as adults. For Southern Coho Salmon that mature as 3 year old adults, return year is Brood Year + 3.
RR Term	A program that reconstructs terminal Coho runs using freshwater and terminal area marine fisheries and escapement data for Puget Sound stocks.
Run	As salmon migrate back to freshwater as adults, they arrive in groups called runs, which are typically associated with a season (spring, summer, fall, winter). A run of salmon may be composed of salmon from a single age or multiple ages, and can be from a single stock or multiple stocks.
Sibling Forecast	In all species of Pacific salmon but pinks, the individual salmon produced in any one spawning year mature and return to spawn in more than one subsequent year. All of the fish that return from a spawning year (the brood year) are collectively referred to as a cohort or the brood-year return. A sibling forecast uses the first returns from a cohort to predict the number of their siblings that will return in subsequent years. Generally, the first year of return is dominated by males and the last year of returns by females.
Single Index Tag (SIT)	A group of coded-wire-tagged (CWT) fish that are not paired with another release group. They can be marked (clipped) or unmarked (unclipped).
Smolt	A smolt is a life cycle phase of a salmon or steelhead when the fish is preparing for the transition from freshwater to saltwater. The process is called smoltification. A smolt becomes physiologically capable of balancing salt and water in the estuary and ocean waters. Smolts vary in size and age depending on the species of salmon.
Smolt Year	The year in which fish would normally enter the ocean as smolts. For Southern Coho Salmon, smolt year is brood year + 2 and return year − 1. Often described as “smolt outmigration year”.
Southern Coho Management Plan (SCMP)	An agreement between the U.S. and Canada that specifies how the Parties’ fisheries impact on Coho Salmon that originate in southern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon shall be managed, subject to future approved technical refinements. It is described in Annex IV, Chapter 5 of the current Pacific Salmon Treaty.
Spawning Escapement	The number of adult fish that “escape” fisheries and return to freshwater to spawn.
Spawning Grounds/Spawn	Spawning grounds are the freshwater areas where salmon and steelhead spawn.
Special management zone (SMZ)	Geographic/temporal areas in B.C. that have special management restrictions.
Status	A Management Unit's status (Low, Moderate, and Abundant) is based on its forecasted (pre-season) or estimated (post-season) ocean Age-3 abundance.
Stock	A group of interbreeding organisms that is relatively isolated (i.e., demographically uncoupled) from other such groups and is likely adapted to the local habitat. Fish species are made up of an aggregate of stocks.
Stock Assessment	The use of various statistical and mathematical calculations to make quantitative predictions about the reactions of fish populations to alternative management choices.
Subsistence Fisheries	In the Pacific Northwest of the U.S., the term "Ceremonial and Subsistence" (C&S) is used to describe non-commercial harvest in Treaty Tribe fisheries for personal, ritual, or community use. In Canada, the term "Food, Social, and Ceremonial" (FSC) is used to describe the non-commercial harvest of fish by the First Nations.
Treaty/Treaties	A treaty is a formal, legally binding agreement that establishes obligations between and among two or more countries, states, or sovereign nations. Examples of treaties include the Pacific Salmon Treaty and treaties between the U.S. and American Indian Tribes.
Troll Fishery (Trolling)	Fishing with a hook or hooks attached to a line that is towed through the water or from a vessel. Commercial trollers employ hooks and lines that are suspended from large poles extending from the fishing vessel
Voluntary Head Recovery Program (VHRP)	A sampling program in B.C. for recreational fisheries that relies upon anglers voluntarily returning heads from marked salmon so CWTs may be recovered.
Wild Salmon	Salmon are considered "wild" if they have spent their entire life cycle in the wild and originate from parents that were also produced by natural spawning and continuously lived in the wild.

8 Appendix: Annual CoTC reports of Estimates of Exploitation Rates

General archive of public CoTC reports

9 Appendix: realized vs target ERs

Table 9.1: Table of target ER (“Preseason”) and observed ER (“Postseason”) for US Inside MUs from 2019 to 2022. “Postseason Unused Using Preseason Cap” compares how well Postseason ER would have met the Preseason cap. This removes the effects of shifts in the abundance category between pre and post-season (if the abundance category remained the same, “Postseason Unused Using Preseason Cap” will be the same as “Postseason Cap”). Outside limits need to be calculated separately; this has not been done yet.

Catch Year	PSC_StockName	Preseason Cap	Preseason Model ER	Preseason Unused	Postseason Cap	Postseason Model ER	Postseason Unused	Postseason Unused Using Preseason Cap
2004	Skagit	60.0	35.8	24.2	60.0	17.9	42.1	42.1
2004	Stillaguamish	50.0	38.8	11.2	50.0	12.0	38.0	38.0
2004	Snohomish	60.0	34.8	25.2	60.0	12.7	47.3	47.3
2004	Hood Canal	65.0	34.6	30.4	65.0	43.7	21.3	21.3
2004	US Strait JDF	60.0	13.0	47.0	40.0	9.4	30.6	50.6
2005	Skagit	35.0	34.2	0.8	35.0	36.9	−1.9	−1.9
2005	Stillaguamish	50.0	42.8	7.2	50.0	26.4	23.6	23.6
2005	Snohomish	60.0	39.4	20.6	60.0	22.2	37.8	37.8
2005	Hood Canal	65.0	34.6	30.4	65.0	37.7	27.3	27.3
2005	US Strait JDF	40.0	12.2	27.8	20.0	6.8	13.2	33.2
2006	Skagit	60.0	35.4	24.6	20.0	33.1	−13.1	26.9
2006	Stillaguamish	50.0	40.2	9.8	35.0	20.9	14.1	29.1
2006	Snohomish	60.0	38.7	21.3	40.0	20.2	19.8	39.8
2006	Hood Canal	65.0	37.1	27.9	65.0	74.1	−9.1	−9.1
2006	US Strait JDF	40.0	11.7	28.3	20.0	9.1	10.9	30.9
2007	Skagit	35.0	33.2	1.8	60.0	37.1	22.9	−2.1
2007	Stillaguamish	50.0	38.5	11.5	50.0	25.1	24.9	24.9
2007	Snohomish	40.0	39.0	1.0	60.0	25.2	34.8	14.8
2007	Hood Canal	65.0	45.6	19.4	65.0	47.8	17.2	17.2
2007	US Strait JDF	60.0	12.3	47.7	20.0	12.6	7.4	47.4
2008	Skagit	35.0	30.1	4.9	35.0	32.0	3.0	3.0
2008	Stillaguamish	50.0	37.8	12.2	35.0	23.3	11.7	26.7
2008	Snohomish	40.0	34.5	5.5	20.0	27.5	−7.5	12.5
2008	Hood Canal	45.0	44.9	0.1	45.0	42.5	2.5	2.5
2008	US Strait JDF	40.0	11.0	29.0	20.0	8.8	11.2	31.2
2009	Skagit	35.0	32.7	2.3	60.0	30.6	29.4	4.4
2009	Stillaguamish	35.0	33.4	1.6	50.0	28.2	21.8	6.8
2009	Snohomish	40.0	26.5	13.5	60.0	26.4	33.6	13.6
2009	Hood Canal	65.0	47.3	17.7	65.0	53.7	11.3	11.3
2009	US Strait JDF	40.0	11.9	28.1	40.0	15.2	24.8	24.8
2010	Skagit	60.0	36.9	23.1	60.0	47.3	12.7	12.7
2010	Stillaguamish	50.0	37.5	12.5	35.0	9.4	25.6	40.6
2010	Snohomish	40.0	32.6	7.4	40.0	9.7	30.3	30.3
2010	Hood Canal	45.0	43.2	1.8	20.0	71.3	−51.3	−26.3
2010	US Strait JDF	20.0	11.3	8.7	40.0	8.2	31.8	11.8
2011	Skagit	60.0	34.9	25.1	60.0	43.8	16.2	16.2
2011	Stillaguamish	50.0	26.0	24.0	50.0	18.5	31.5	31.5
2011	Snohomish	60.0	25.9	34.1	60.0	18.9	41.1	41.1
2011	Hood Canal	65.0	40.2	24.8	65.0	57.1	7.9	7.9
2011	US Strait JDF	40.0	10.9	29.1	40.0	8.4	31.6	31.6
2012	Skagit	35.0	30.6	4.4	60.0	33.3	26.7	1.7
2012	Stillaguamish	50.0	29.0	21.0	50.0	25.4	24.6	24.6
2012	Snohomish	40.0	28.6	11.4	60.0	25.6	34.4	14.4
2012	Hood Canal	65.0	49.8	15.2	65.0	58.6	6.4	6.4
2012	US Strait JDF	40.0	12.9	27.1	40.0	12.1	27.9	27.9
2013	Skagit	60.0	36.0	24.0	60.0	43.1	16.9	16.9
2013	Stillaguamish	50.0	28.0	22.0	50.0	22.6	27.4	27.4
2013	Snohomish	60.0	25.2	34.8	60.0	28.5	31.5	31.5
2013	Hood Canal	45.0	45.2	−0.2	45.0	57.7	−12.7	−12.7
2013	US Strait JDF	40.0	12.9	27.1	20.0	13.7	6.3	26.3
2014	Skagit	60.0	39.8	20.2	35.0	52.0	−17.0	8.0
2014	Stillaguamish	50.0	33.1	16.9	50.0	27.1	22.9	22.9
2014	Snohomish	60.0	31.6	28.4	40.0	30.6	9.4	29.4
2014	Hood Canal	65.0	57.1	7.9	65.0	68.3	−3.3	−3.3
2014	US Strait JDF	40.0	13.0	27.0	40.0	16.8	23.2	23.2
2015	Skagit	60.0	39.1	20.9	20.0	62.7	−42.7	−2.7
2015	Stillaguamish	50.0	34.6	15.4	20.0	46.6	−26.6	3.4
2015	Snohomish	60.0	32.9	27.1	20.0	53.6	−33.6	6.4
2015	Hood Canal	65.0	54.1	10.9	65.0	58.7	6.3	6.3
2015	US Strait JDF	20.0	12.6	7.4	20.0	18.1	1.9	1.9
2016	Skagit	20.0	7.4	12.6	35.0	19.9	15.1	0.1
2016	Stillaguamish	20.0	8.0	12.0	35.0	16.5	18.5	3.5
2016	Snohomish	20.0	6.6	13.4	40.0	18.5	21.5	1.5
2016	Hood Canal	45.0	41.3	3.7	45.0	40.1	4.9	4.9
2016	US Strait JDF	20.0	5.2	14.8	20.0	3.0	17.0	17.0
2017	Skagit	20.0	11.1	8.9	20.0	9.4	10.6	10.6
2017	Stillaguamish	20.0	8.7	11.3	20.0	11.8	8.2	8.2
2017	Snohomish	40.0	15.4	24.6	20.0	21.5	−1.5	18.5
2017	Hood Canal	65.0	40.6	24.4	45.0	35.6	9.4	29.4
2017	US Strait JDF	40.0	4.9	35.1	20.0	5.6	14.4	34.4
2018	Skagit	35.0	31.1	3.9	35.0	48.4	−13.4	−13.4
2018	Stillaguamish	35.0	34.6	0.4	50.0	22.5	27.5	12.5
2018	Snohomish	40.0	33.7	6.3	40.0	25.1	14.9	14.9
2018	Hood Canal	65.0	42.7	22.3	20.0	57.3	−37.3	7.7
2018	US Strait JDF	20.0	6.7	13.3	20.0	7.9	12.1	12.1
2019	Skagit	35.0	32.4	2.6	35.0	48.2	−13.2	−13.2
2019	Stillaguamish	50.0	22.7	27.3	35.0	20.3	14.7	29.7
2019	Snohomish	40.0	19.6	20.4	20.0	17.2	2.8	22.8
2019	Hood Canal	45.0	44.5	0.5	20.0	46.1	−26.1	−1.1
2019	US Strait JDF	20.0	8.9	11.1	20.0	12.0	8.0	8.0
2020	Skagit	35.0	30.0	5.0	35.0	42.6	−7.6	−7.6
2020	Stillaguamish	35.0	17.9	17.1	50.0	12.6	37.4	22.4
2020	Snohomish	20.0	12.8	7.2	20.0	10.6	9.4	9.4
2020	Hood Canal	45.0	42.4	2.6	45.0	28.7	16.3	16.3
2020	US Strait JDF	20.0	9.0	11.0	20.0	7.1	12.9	12.9
2021	Skagit	35.0	32.5	2.5	60.0	32.6	27.4	2.4
2021	Stillaguamish	50.0	28.7	21.3	50.0	10.6	39.4	39.4
2021	Snohomish	40.0	28.6	11.4	40.0	11.2	28.8	28.8
2021	Hood Canal	45.0	43.3	1.7	65.0	24.8	40.2	20.2
2021	US Strait JDF	20.0	9.1	10.9	40.0	7.1	32.9	12.9
2022	Skagit	60.0	39.5	20.5	60.0	25.6	34.4	34.4
2022	Stillaguamish	50.0	36.1	13.9	50.0	9.9	40.1	40.1
2022	Snohomish	40.0	33.7	6.3	40.0	8.1	31.9	31.9
2022	Hood Canal	45.0	44.3	0.7	45.0	54.1	−9.1	−9.1
2022	US Strait JDF	20.0	10.9	9.1	40.0	7.7	32.3	12.3

10 Appendix: FRAM Pre and Post-Season Command Files

Table 10.1: Pre- and post-season command files and base period used in FRAM to evaluate [ ]{.quarto-shortcode__ data-is-shortcode=“1” data-raw=“”} [ ]{.quarto-shortcode__ data-is-shortcode=“1” data-raw=“”} over catch years 2004 through 2023. “Post-season Original” command files are those used to generate estimates for the Annual [ ]{.quarto-shortcode__ data-is-shortcode=“1” data-raw=“”} Report provided to the Southern Panel during the [ ]{.quarto-shortcode__ data-is-shortcode=“1” data-raw=“”} Annual Meeting.

Catch Year	Pre-season U.S.	Pre-season Canada	Post-season Original	Post-season Revised	Base Period Used in Revised BKFRAM Run
2004	0425.Cmd	0427.Cmd	04pa.Cmd	BK04.Cmd	CohoBase
2005	0519.Cmd	P5at.Cmd	05p9bk.Cmd	BK05.Cmd	CohoBase87917
2006	0619.Cmd	0631.Cmd	06p4.Cmd	BK06.Cmd	CohoBase-86-92-NoUF86-Jan2008
2007	0714.Cmd	0714.Cmd	07JH.Cmd	BK07.Cmd	CohoBase-86-92-NoUF86-Jan2009
2008	0824.Cmd	0828.Cmd	BK08.Cmd	BK08.Cmd	CohoBase-86-92-NoUF86-Feb2008
2009	0920.Cmd	0920.Cmd	BK09.Cmd	BK09.Cmd	CohoBase-86-92-NoUF86-Feb2009
2010	1016.Cmd	1016.Cmd	BK10 PSC Feb14	TBD	CohoBase-86-92-NoUF86-Feb2009
2011	1116.Cmd	TBD	Coho2011Post_PSC 2013	TBD	TBD
2012	1229.Cmd	TBD	Coho2012Post_PSC SSNPx2 Q 2014	TBD	TBD
2013	bc-1323 all FRAM inputs	TBD	bk 2013 Final ver3 Feb 11 2015	TBD	TBD
2014	bc-Coho1418 US and BC preseason 2014	TBD	bc-BK2014 w TAMM inputs final#2	TBD	TBD
2015	bc-Coho 1523 Final	TBD	bc-bkCoho2015 Final	TBD	TBD
2016	bc-Coho1637 rerun by CoTC	TBD	bc-BK2016 BPMar2013 final	TBD	TBD
2017	bc-Coho1731_Final	TBD	bc-BK Coho 2017 final take2	TBD	TBD
2018	bc-Coho1830	TBD	bc-BKCoho2018_A_2_a	TBD	TBD
2019	bc‐Coho1925	TBD	bc‐BKCoho2019_A_2_d	TBD	TBD
2020	bc‐Coho2032	TBD	bc‐BKCoho2020_A_2_c	TBD	TBD
2021	bc‐Coho2140_Final	TBD	bc‐BkCoho2021_A_2	TBD	TBD
2022	TBD	TBD	Not yet available	Not yet available	Not yet available
2023	TBD	TBD	Not yet available	Not yet available	Not yet available

11 Appendix: List of indicator stocks by management units

Table 11.1: Coded-wire-tag indicator stocks and brood years with single index tag (SIT) and groups for each Coho Salmon , beginning with brood year 1983. Indicator stocks are hatchery-produced Coho Salmon unless specified as “Wild” (Release data downloaded from RMIS 1-10-2023). SIT groups may be either marked or unmarked releases of Coho Salmon. groups are marked (adipose-fin clipped) and unmarked pairs of Coho Salmon.

Management Unit	Indicator Stock	Brood Yr SIT	Brood Yr
Southern BC MUs
Lower Fraser	Inch Creek Hatchery	83-95,14-19	96-13
	Salmon River (Wild)1	84-99,01,03,05-07	NA
	Chilliwack R. H. (Chilliwack R.)	83-95	96-02
	Chehalis R. H. (Chehalis R.)	83-97	–
Interior Fraser	Spius Cr. H. (Coldwater R.)2	84-94,96-98,03-19	99-02
	Spius Cr. H. (Salmon R./TOMF)3	95-96,99,01-02,04-05,07,14,17-19	–
	Spius Cr. H. (Spius Cr.)4	94-96,99-00	97-98
	Spius Cr. H. (Eagle R.)	10-13,15-19	–
	Chilliwack R. H. (Coldwater R.)5	16-19	–
	Eagle R. H. (Salmon R.)6	83-93	–
	Eagle R. H. (Eagle R.)7	83-93	–
	Eagle R. H. (Perry R.)8	84-86	–
	Dunn Cr. H. (Dunn Cr.)9	86-87,89-90,92,95,98-07	–
	Dunn Cr. H. (Dunn Lake)10	84-91,94,97	–
	Dunn Cr. H. (Lemieux Cr.)11	83-86,88,92-93,97-99,03,06-09	–
	Dunn Cr. H. (Louis Cr.)12	88-94,97-07	–
	Dunn Cr. H. (Ianson Ch.)13	88-91,94-95,00-02,04-05	–
	Eagle River (Wild)14	00-03	NA
	Lemieux Creek (Wild)	92-93	NA
Strait of Georgia Mainland	Capilano R. H.	83-97,00	–
	Lang Creek H. (Lang Cr.)15	87-91,95-96,08-09	–
Strait of Georgia Vancouver Island	Quinsam R. H.	83-85,18-19	96-17
	Big Qualicum R. H.	83-85,87-95,03-15,17-19	96-02
	Goldstream R. H.	91-94,03-11	96-02
	Puntledge R. H.16	83-97,99-02,09-10,19	–
	Black Creek (Wild)17	83-17	NA
US Inside MUs
Skagit	Marblemount H. (Skagit R.)	83-93	94-21
	Baker River (Wild)18	83-97,00-22	NA
Stillaguamish19	Wallace R. H. (Skykomish R.)	83-95	96-21
	Harvey Creek H.	91,07,14,16-20	–
	Stillaguamish R. (Wild)	84-87	NA
Snohomish	Wallace R. H. (Skykomish R.)	83-95	96-21
	Bernie Gobin H. (Tulalip Cr.)20	83-21	–
Hood Canal	Quilcene NFH	87-95	96-21
	Quilcene Bay Sea Pens	88,90,93,95,02-11,13-14	96-01
	Port Gamble Bay Pens	83-95,04-21	96-03
	George Adams H. (Skokomish R.)	83-94,96	95,97-21
	Big Beef Creek (Wild)21	83-21	NA
Strait of Juan de Fuca	Lower Elwha H.22	85-94,12,15,18	95-11,13-14,16-17,09-20
	Dungeness H.	83,86,89,91-94,05-08,18-20	–
	Hoko Falls H.	18-20	–
	Hoko and Salmon Creek (Wild)	84-87,08	NA
US Outside MUs
Quillayute	Sol Duc H.	83-88,90-95	96-21
	Various Tributaries (Wild)23	83-86,88-92
Hoh	Chalaat Creek H.	84,86-89	–
	Canyon Springs Pond	86-87	–
	Sol Duc H.	85,87	–
	Hoh River (Wild)24	83-87,03,05-12	NA
Queets	Quinault Lake H.	83-84,90-92	–
	Salmon R. Fish Culture	83,85-94	95-21
	Queets/Clearwater wild25	83-11,13-20	NA
Grays Harbor	Bingham Creek H.	83-94	95-21
	Aberdeen Net Pens	88-90,92-94	–
	Humptulips H. (Stevens Cr.)	83-94,06,10-12,19-20	95-96
	Bingham Creek (Wild)26	83-20	NA
	Stevens & Scatter Creek (Wild)	83-90,92-93	NA
	Chehalis Upriver (Wild)27	83-97,00-20	NA
	Skookumchuck H.	83,89,98,06-07,09, 11-12	98

12 Appendix: U.S. DITs

Data provided here was queried from the RMIS release database on 1/27/2025.

12.1 Skagit MU

Table 12.1: Double-index tag codes released within the Skagit MU, brood years 1994 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1994	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199600000211	635909	Clipped	99623
1994	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199600000211	635906	Unclipped	45865
1995	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199700000212	636158	Clipped	42489
1995	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199700000212	636201	Unclipped	42566
1996	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199800000196	630545	Clipped	43348
1996	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199800000196	630546	Unclipped	45089
1997	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199900000195	630554	Clipped	42299
1997	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04199900000195	636211	Unclipped	41906
1998	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200000000209	631107	Clipped	40398
1998	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200000000209	631108	Unclipped	40525
1999	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200100000199	630299	Clipped	45831
1999	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200100000199	630298	Unclipped	45052
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630950	Clipped	10582
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630387	Clipped	10777
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630946	Clipped	10783
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630948	Clipped	10861
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630386	Unclipped	10988
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630947	Unclipped	10969
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630949	Unclipped	10935
2000	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200200000200	630945	Unclipped	10988
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631257	Clipped	10745
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631259	Clipped	11240
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631253	Clipped	9013
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631255	Clipped	9975
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631254	Unclipped	7472
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631069	Unclipped	6887
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631256	Unclipped	9063
2001	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200300000206	631258	Unclipped	8999
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632090	Clipped	11046
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632088	Clipped	10781
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632089	Clipped	6947
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632091	Clipped	10861
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632092	Unclipped	10967
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632094	Unclipped	10878
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632093	Unclipped	9781
2002	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200400000192	632095	Unclipped	11100
2003	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200500000191	631997	Clipped	46348
2003	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200500000191	632289	Unclipped	46823
2004	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200600000183	633099	Clipped	47305
2004	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200600000183	633197	Unclipped	41300
2005	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200700000184	633571	Clipped	43100
2005	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200700000184	633572	Unclipped	43575
2006	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200800000187	633691	Clipped	47072
2006	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200800000187	633690	Unclipped	47206
2007	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200900000180	634484	Clipped	44174
2007	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04200900000180	634485	Unclipped	44604
2008	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201000000181	634495	Clipped	43359
2008	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201000000181	634496	Unclipped	43568
2009	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201100000213	635381	Clipped	44465
2009	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201100000213	635382	Unclipped	43354
2010	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201200000215	635799	Clipped	41840
2010	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201200000215	635798	Unclipped	42100
2011	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201300000030	636377	Clipped	45068
2011	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201300000030	636376	Unclipped	45650
2012	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201400000080	636555	Clipped	43388
2012	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201400000080	636554	Unclipped	43163
2013	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201500000796	636697	Clipped	47575
2013	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201500000796	636696	Unclipped	47670
2014	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201600000837	636839	Clipped	43867
2014	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201600000837	636840	Unclipped	43868
2015	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201700000878	636993	Clipped	46326
2015	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201700000878	636994	Unclipped	46309
2016	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201800000906	637089	Clipped	36508
2016	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201800000906	637088	Unclipped	36893
2017	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201900000951	637272	Clipped	41744
2017	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04201900000951	637271	Unclipped	41842
2018	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202000001028	637555	Clipped	44326
2018	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202000001028	637554	Unclipped	46243
2019	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202100001068	637678	Clipped	41895
2019	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202100001068	637677	Unclipped	42653
2020	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202200001130	638003	Clipped	40507
2020	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202200001130	638002	Unclipped	40547
2021	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202300001147	638230	Clipped	45944
2021	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202300001147	638229	Unclipped	45747
2022	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202400001224	638131	Clipped	41738
2022	MARBLEMOUNT HATCHERY	04202400001224	638130	Unclipped	47290

12.2 Stillaguamish MU

No Double-index-tag groups have been released in the Stillaguamish to date.

12.3 Snohomish MU

Table 12.2: Double-index tag codes released within the Snohomish MU, brood years 1996 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1996	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04199800000223	636209	Clipped	46251
1996	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04199800000223	636210	Unclipped	45718
1997	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04199900000225	630810	Clipped	45004
1997	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04199900000225	630809	Unclipped	45091
1998	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200000000230	631237	Clipped	22350
1998	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200000000230	631223	Clipped	20665
1998	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200000000230	631236	Unclipped	22524
1998	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200000000230	631238	Unclipped	23049
1999	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200100000226	631160	Clipped	24591
1999	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200100000226	630466	Clipped	23171
1999	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200100000227	630467	Unclipped	21154
1999	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200100000227	631052	Unclipped	21698
2000	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200200000229	631286	Clipped	20186
2000	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200200000229	631287	Clipped	19372
2000	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200200000229	631284	Unclipped	19384
2000	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200200000229	631285	Unclipped	19960
2001	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200300000237	631576	Clipped	20672
2001	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200300000237	631578	Clipped	18935
2001	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200300000237	631575	Unclipped	22377
2001	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200300000237	631577	Unclipped	21263
2002	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200400000236	632199	Clipped	23416
2002	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200400000236	632196	Clipped	23036
2002	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200400000236	632198	Unclipped	23379
2002	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200400000236	632197	Unclipped	23280
2003	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200500000238	632679	Clipped	43217
2003	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200500000238	632678	Unclipped	43575
2004	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200600000242	633266	Clipped	30182
2004	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200600000242	633267	Unclipped	30300
2005	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200700000240	633680	Clipped	46804
2005	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200700000240	633681	Unclipped	48378
2006	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200800000245	634176	Clipped	44693
2006	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200800000245	634175	Unclipped	45883
2007	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200900000246	634493	Clipped	45604
2007	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04200900000246	634494	Unclipped	45310
2008	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201000000219	634892	Clipped	42318
2008	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201000000219	634893	Unclipped	42077
2009	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201100000221	635895	Clipped	42851
2009	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201100000221	635896	Unclipped	42508
2010	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201200000217	635988	Clipped	44305
2010	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201200000217	635990	Unclipped	45293
2011	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201300000034	636383	Clipped	44056
2011	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201300000034	636384	Unclipped	44425
2012	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201400000690	636593	Clipped	44397
2012	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201400000690	636594	Unclipped	44658
2013	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201500000852	636881	Clipped	44229
2013	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201500000852	636880	Unclipped	44451
2014	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201600000838	636843	Clipped	44744
2014	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201600000838	636844	Unclipped	44802
2015	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201700000883	637012	Clipped	47502
2015	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201700000883	637013	Unclipped	47989
2016	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201800000934	637264	Clipped	46727
2016	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201800000934	637263	Unclipped	47068
2017	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201900000947	637274	Clipped	44690
2017	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04201900000947	637275	Unclipped	44914
2018	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202000001027	637557	Clipped	45340
2018	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202000001027	637556	Unclipped	45693
2019	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202100001069	637680	Clipped	46779
2019	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202100001069	637681	Unclipped	51741
2020	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202200001102	637914	Clipped	41466
2020	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202200001102	637841	Unclipped	41726
2021	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202300001148	638233	Clipped	40749
2021	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202300001148	638232	Unclipped	41033
2022	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202400001191	638331	Clipped	38854
2022	WALLACE R HATCHERY	04202400001191	638330	Unclipped	38858

12.4 Hood Canal MU

Table 12.3: Double-index tag codes released within the Hood Canal MU, brood years 1995 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1995	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199700000253	636142	Clipped	45065
1995	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199700000253	636143	Unclipped	45242
1997	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199900000269	630526	Clipped	20817
1997	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199900000269	630528	Clipped	22279
1997	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199900000269	630527	Unclipped	21728
1997	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04199900000269	630529	Unclipped	22312
1998	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200000000262	630918	Clipped	42496
1998	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200000000262	630917	Unclipped	41288
1999	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200100000268	630372	Clipped	24221
1999	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200100000268	630373	Clipped	25178
1999	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200100000268	630374	Unclipped	25207
1999	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200100000268	630371	Unclipped	26198
2000	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200200000270	630591	Clipped	43686
2000	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200200000270	630592	Unclipped	43518
2001	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200300000260	631518	Clipped	21359
2001	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200300000260	631517	Clipped	22260
2001	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200300000260	631473	Unclipped	21763
2001	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200300000260	631474	Unclipped	21881
2002	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200400000273	632079	Clipped	22036
2002	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200400000273	632078	Clipped	21650
2002	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200400000273	632080	Unclipped	21612
2002	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200400000273	632081	Unclipped	22269
2003	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200500000272	632290	Clipped	41584
2003	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200500000272	632672	Unclipped	41626
2004	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200600000280	633265	Clipped	44965
2004	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200600000280	633264	Unclipped	44879
2005	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200700000283	633679	Clipped	43785
2005	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200700000283	633678	Unclipped	43193
2006	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200800000277	634168	Clipped	45482
2006	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200800000277	634167	Unclipped	53098
2007	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200900000278	634486	Clipped	45669
2007	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04200900000278	634487	Unclipped	45669
2008	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201000000249	634887	Clipped	44613
2008	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201000000249	634888	Unclipped	45371
2009	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201100000255	635385	Clipped	45698
2009	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201100000255	635386	Unclipped	45815
2010	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201200000258	635985	Clipped	45259
2010	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201200000258	635989	Unclipped	45568
2011	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201300000032	636381	Clipped	44504
2011	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201300000032	636380	Unclipped	45042
2012	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201400000081	636559	Clipped	44820
2012	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201400000081	636558	Unclipped	44820
2013	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201500000798	636703	Clipped	44158
2013	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201500000798	636704	Unclipped	43284
2014	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201600000839	636847	Clipped	46640
2014	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201600000839	636848	Unclipped	46999
2015	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201700000879	636997	Clipped	46750
2015	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201700000879	636998	Unclipped	46375
2016	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201800000900	637085	Clipped	46812
2016	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201800000900	637084	Unclipped	47018
2017	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201900000948	637276	Clipped	44442
2017	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04201900000948	637277	Unclipped	45313
2018	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202000001038	637558	Clipped	45740
2018	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202000001038	637568	Unclipped	45574
2019	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202100001066	637672	Clipped	45368
2019	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202100001066	637673	Unclipped	45368
2020	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202200001131	638007	Clipped	47031
2020	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202200001131	638006	Unclipped	46772
2021	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202300001150	638120	Clipped	45565
2021	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202300001150	638237	Unclipped	45712
2022	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202400001216	638133	Clipped	47055
2022	GEORGE ADAMS HATCHERY	04202400001216	638132	Unclipped	47759
1996	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	1419989004	213106	Clipped	50017
1996	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	1419989004	636162	Unclipped	49500
1997	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	141999DI05	210133	Clipped	49420
1997	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	141999DI05	636216	Unclipped	52593
1998	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142000DI03	631157	Clipped	49346
1998	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142000DI03	210136	Unclipped	49077
1999	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142001DI05	210262	Clipped	44146
1999	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142001DI05	630297	Unclipped	45375
2000	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142002DI05	210193	Clipped	44707
2000	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142002DI05	630977	Unclipped	45664
2001	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142003DI05	210398	Clipped	44779
2001	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142003DI05	210399	Unclipped	45159
2002	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142004DI04	210427	Clipped	45343
2002	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142004DI04	631527	Unclipped	45397
2003	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142005DI04	210554	Clipped	43342
2003	PORT GAMBLE BAY PENS	142005DI04	632675	Unclipped	43110
1996	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	1419989006	054038	Clipped	42377
1996	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	1419989006	055019	Unclipped	44859
1997	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	141999DI02	051704	Clipped	48875
1997	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	141999DI02	051331	Unclipped	45788
1998	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142000DI06	055125	Clipped	48023
1998	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142000DI06	055126	Unclipped	48640
1999	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142001DI04	050295	Clipped	41710
1999	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142001DI04	050296	Unclipped	42407
2000	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142002DI04	050664	Clipped	46542
2000	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142002DI04	050599	Unclipped	45880
2001	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142003DI04	050999	Clipped	23000
2001	QUILCENE BAY SEA PEN	142003DI04	051064	Unclipped	20000
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	055026	Clipped	11553
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	055028	Clipped	11211
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	055027	Clipped	11314
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	055025	Clipped	11333
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	630260	Unclipped	10455
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	630263	Unclipped	10397
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	630301	Unclipped	10194
1996	QUILCENE NFH	071998WC15	630258	Unclipped	9815
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B2	051542	Clipped	12570
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B2	051323	Unclipped	11736
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B5	051543	Clipped	12234
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B5	051324	Unclipped	11305
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B8	051544	Clipped	11789
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35B8	051325	Unclipped	11451
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35D7	051552	Clipped	11820
1997	QUILCENE NFH	071999WC35D7	051326	Unclipped	11743
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B3	055159	Clipped	12031
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B3	055160	Unclipped	11602
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B5	055161	Clipped	12061
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B5	055162	Unclipped	10843
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B7	055163	Clipped	11978
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50B7	055204	Unclipped	9900
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50D5	055205	Clipped	12123
1998	QUILCENE NFH	072000WC50D5	055206	Unclipped	12271
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B3	050378	Clipped	12468
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B3	050379	Unclipped	9387
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B5	050380	Clipped	10611
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B5	050381	Unclipped	12971
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B7	050382	Clipped	11113
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25B7	050383	Unclipped	9020
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25D5	050384	Clipped	12077
1999	QUILCENE NFH	072001WC25D5	050385	Unclipped	10551
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B3	050591	Clipped	12564
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B3	050592	Unclipped	12435
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B5	050593	Clipped	11659
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B5	050594	Unclipped	11863
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B8	050595	Clipped	12596
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80B8	050596	Unclipped	11870
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80D6	050597	Clipped	12494
2000	QUILCENE NFH	072002WC80D6	050598	Unclipped	12625
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB40440	051076	Clipped	11449
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB40440	051077	Unclipped	12790
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB60440	051078	Clipped	11640
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB60440	051079	Unclipped	12017
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB80440	051080	Clipped	12148
2001	QUILCENE NFH	072003UILB80440	051081	Unclipped	12158
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051672	Clipped	11090
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051674	Clipped	11072
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051668	Clipped	10243
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051670	Clipped	10708
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051673	Unclipped	11118
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051675	Unclipped	10450
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051669	Unclipped	11785
2002	QUILCENE NFH	0720040500	051671	Unclipped	11728
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B2	052296	Clipped	11221
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B2	052297	Unclipped	11145
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B4	052298	Clipped	10143
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B4	052299	Unclipped	10117
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B7	052364	Clipped	10404
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550B7	052365	Unclipped	10272
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550D6	052366	Clipped	9239
2003	QUILCENE NFH	072005QL550D6	052367	Unclipped	7043
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052699	Clipped	11263
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052765	Clipped	11502
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052767	Clipped	12562
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052769	Clipped	12467
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052768	Unclipped	13144
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052764	Unclipped	11591
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052766	Unclipped	12816
2004	QUILCENE NFH	0720060600	052770	Unclipped	11540
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053284	Clipped	6321
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053280	Clipped	12889
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053282	Clipped	11343
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053278	Clipped	11027
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053285	Unclipped	6408
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053283	Unclipped	10616
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053281	Unclipped	12160
2005	QUILCENE NFH	0720070635	053279	Unclipped	11345
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053972	Clipped	8566
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053976	Clipped	9569
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053965	Clipped	6832
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053974	Clipped	9172
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053977	Unclipped	9510
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053966	Unclipped	6923
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053973	Unclipped	8469
2006	QUILCENE NFH	0720080680	053975	Unclipped	9445
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054479	Clipped	7168
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054477	Clipped	9858
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054473	Clipped	9580
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054475	Clipped	9861
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054478	Unclipped	9647
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054480	Unclipped	9717
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054474	Unclipped	9578
2007	QUILCENE NFH	0720090775	054476	Unclipped	10006
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054765	Clipped	8422
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054769	Clipped	9919
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054771	Clipped	9691
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054767	Clipped	9903
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054770	Unclipped	10025
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054772	Unclipped	9935
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054766	Unclipped	9961
2008	QUILCENE NFH	0720100875	054768	Unclipped	10405
2009	QUILCENE NFH	0720110975	055175	Clipped	10450
2009	QUILCENE NFH	0720110975	055173	Clipped	10249
2009	QUILCENE NFH	0720110975	055176	Unclipped	10126
2009	QUILCENE NFH	0720110975	055174	Unclipped	10350
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055464	Clipped	24936
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055334	Clipped	9817
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055328	Clipped	9429
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055465	Unclipped	24752
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055335	Unclipped	10012
2010	QUILCENE NFH	0720121075	055329	Unclipped	9495
2011	QUILCENE NFH	0720131175	055484	Clipped	71292
2011	QUILCENE NFH	0720131175	055483	Unclipped	70746
2012	QUILCENE NFH	0720141275	055308	Clipped	72256
2012	QUILCENE NFH	0720141275	055478	Unclipped	72744
2013	QUILCENE NFH	0720151375	055306	Clipped	73938
2013	QUILCENE NFH	0720151375	055307	Unclipped	73509
2014	QUILCENE NFH	0720161475	055751	Clipped	71079
2014	QUILCENE NFH	0720161475	055680	Unclipped	70368
2015	QUILCENE NFH	0720171575	055895	Clipped	79057
2015	QUILCENE NFH	0720171575	055896	Unclipped	79146
2016	QUILCENE NFH	0720181675	056037	Clipped	70322
2016	QUILCENE NFH	0720181675	056038	Unclipped	70095
2017	QUILCENE NFH	0720191775	055904	Clipped	82296
2017	QUILCENE NFH	0720191775	055905	Unclipped	80181
2018	QUILCENE NFH	0720201875	056166	Clipped	79847
2018	QUILCENE NFH	0720201875	056167	Unclipped	79855
2019	QUILCENE NFH	0720211975	056330	Clipped	77453
2019	QUILCENE NFH	0720211975	056331	Unclipped	79039
2020	QUILCENE NFH	0720222075	056527	Clipped	78013
2020	QUILCENE NFH	0720222075	056526	Unclipped	77835
2021	QUILCENE NFH	0720232175	056679	Clipped	75411
2021	QUILCENE NFH	0720232175	056678	Unclipped	78258
2022	QUILCENE NFH	0720242275	056682	Clipped	77293
2022	QUILCENE NFH	0720242275	056681	Unclipped	78553

12.5 Strait of Juan de Fuca MU

Table 12.4: Double-index tag codes released within the Strait of Juan de Fuca (SJDF) MU, brood years 1995 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
2011	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142012elwha	211025	Clipped	76261
2011	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142012elwha	636189	Unclipped	66615
2013	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142013elwha	211086	Clipped	78416
2013	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142013elwha	636634	Unclipped	75654
2014	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142014elwha	211129	Clipped	50318
2014	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142014elwha	636774	Unclipped	76104
2016	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142016elwa	211207	Clipped	76635
2016	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142016elwa	637134	Unclipped	77346
2017	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142019ELWH	211295	Clipped	76577
2017	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142019ELWH	637320	Unclipped	76791
2019	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142021ELWHA2	211382	Clipped	81324
2019	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142021ELWHA2	637705	Unclipped	83328
2020	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142022ELWHA2	211499	Clipped	77209
2020	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142022ELWHA2	637710	Unclipped	77162
2021	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142023ELWHA2	211561	Clipped	80177
2021	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142023ELWHA2	638259	Unclipped	80277
2022	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142024ELWHA	211699	Clipped	74137
2022	LOWER ELWHA HATCH - HOUSE	142024ELWHA	630009	Unclipped	81615
1995	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	1419979001	636221	Clipped	48511
1995	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	1419979001	212923	Clipped	29639
1995	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	1419979001	212615	Unclipped	72909
1996	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	1419989002	213046	Clipped	78862
1996	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	1419989002	213048	Unclipped	75203
1997	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	141999DI03	213047	Clipped	74940
1997	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	141999DI03	630814	Unclipped	77378
1998	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142000DI04	210220	Clipped	79438
1998	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142000DI04	631101	Unclipped	76733
1999	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142001DI06	210171	Clipped	62465
1999	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142001DI06	631105	Unclipped	61865
2000	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142002DI06	630965	Clipped	70742
2000	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142002DI06	210192	Unclipped	71362
2001	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142003DI06	210222	Clipped	72867
2001	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142003DI06	210409	Unclipped	73722
2002	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142004DI05	210426	Clipped	74683
2002	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142004DI05	210376	Unclipped	75185
2003	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142005DI05	210549	Clipped	63274
2003	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142005DI05	632680	Unclipped	51084
2004	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142006DI04	210587	Clipped	77661
2004	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142006DI04	632692	Unclipped	78779
2005	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142007DI004	210676	Clipped	76159
2005	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142007DI004	633187	Unclipped	76246
2006	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142008DI001	633980	Clipped	78303
2006	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142008DI001	210747	Unclipped	79887
2007	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142009000005	210785	Clipped	78972
2007	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142009000005	634375	Unclipped	79013
2008	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwha0	210839	Clipped	79575
2008	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwha0	635084	Unclipped	79897
2009	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwhac	210904	Clipped	80405
2009	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwhac	635190	Unclipped	80086
2010	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwha1	210956	Clipped	82395
2010	LOWER ELWHA HATCHERY	142010elwha1	635585	Unclipped	83081

12.6 Quillayute MU

Table 12.5: Double-index tag codes released within the Quillayute MU, brood years 1996 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636305	Clipped	11785
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636303	Clipped	11894
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636302	Clipped	12086
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636301	Clipped	12070
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636304	Clipped	11782
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636306	Clipped	11716
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636260	Unclipped	12339
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636307	Unclipped	12192
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636308	Unclipped	12294
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636309	Unclipped	12446
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636310	Unclipped	12059
1996	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199800000401	636261	Unclipped	12368
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630927	Clipped	12206
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630928	Clipped	12166
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630926	Clipped	12133
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630924	Clipped	12183
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630925	Clipped	12156
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630929	Clipped	12290
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630933	Unclipped	12288
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630930	Unclipped	12375
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630931	Unclipped	12223
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630935	Unclipped	8360
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630932	Unclipped	12341
1997	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04199900000399	630934	Unclipped	12398
1998	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200000000397	631231	Clipped	36858
1998	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200000000397	631217	Clipped	34895
1998	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200000000397	631230	Unclipped	36134
1998	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200000000397	631216	Unclipped	36032
1999	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200100000400	630291	Clipped	71348
1999	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200100000400	630574	Unclipped	64087
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631181	Clipped	47890
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631275	Clipped	12501
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631277	Clipped	12140
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631274	Unclipped	12226
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631276	Unclipped	12016
2000	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200200000396	631180	Unclipped	48872
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631679	Clipped	12581
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631564	Clipped	50964
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631677	Clipped	12297
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631678	Unclipped	12359
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631565	Unclipped	51600
2001	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200300000390	631680	Unclipped	9780
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	631988	Clipped	47031
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	632265	Clipped	11580
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	632266	Clipped	11778
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	632267	Unclipped	11884
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	632264	Unclipped	11482
2002	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200400000391	631685	Unclipped	48379
2003	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200500000389	632684	Clipped	73248
2003	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200500000389	632690	Unclipped	73234
2004	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200600000388	633189	Unclipped	75932
2004	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200600000388	633190	Clipped	74508
2005	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200700000395	633677	Clipped	72242
2005	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200700000395	633676	Unclipped	71195
2006	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200800000392	634091	Clipped	76439
2006	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200800000392	634090	Unclipped	76684
2007	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200900000394	633184	Clipped	75208
2007	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04200900000394	633183	Unclipped	75261
2008	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201000000403	634968	Clipped	77081
2008	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201000000403	634969	Unclipped	77549
2009	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201100000402	635464	Clipped	77397
2009	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201100000402	635465	Unclipped	75700
2010	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201200000404	635877	Clipped	80757
2010	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201200000404	635878	Unclipped	80185
2011	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201300000044	635881	Clipped	76456
2011	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201300000044	635882	Unclipped	76179
2012	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201400000039	636398	Clipped	79336
2012	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201400000039	636399	Unclipped	79205
2013	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201500000799	636708	Clipped	75551
2013	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201500000799	636709	Unclipped	76669
2014	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201600000846	636865	Clipped	75012
2014	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201600000846	636866	Unclipped	77281
2015	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201700000866	636913	Clipped	79705
2015	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201700000866	636914	Unclipped	79740
2016	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201800000921	637131	Clipped	75067
2016	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201800000921	637132	Unclipped	75027
2017	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201900000956	637321	Clipped	76883
2017	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04201900000956	637323	Unclipped	77503
2018	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202000001008	637502	Clipped	74561
2018	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202000001008	637501	Unclipped	74464
2019	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202100001076	637707	Clipped	66913
2019	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202100001076	637708	Unclipped	66913
2020	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202200001135	638018	Clipped	73848
2020	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202200001135	638019	Unclipped	74549
2021	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202300001155	638167	Clipped	75201
2021	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202300001155	638260	Unclipped	75248
2022	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202400001232	638174	Clipped	77925
2022	SOLDUC HATCHERY	04202400001232	638173	Unclipped	77963

12.7 Hoh MU

No Double-index-tag groups have been released in the Hoh to date.

12.8 Queets MU

Table 12.6: Double-index tag codes released within the Queets MU, brood years 1995 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1995	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	1419979002	215502	Clipped	98204
1995	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	1419979002	636154	Unclipped	71275
1996	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	1419989003	630557	Clipped	73905
1996	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	1419989003	215503	Unclipped	98473
1997	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	141999DI04	630818	Clipped	72236
1997	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	141999DI04	210139	Unclipped	68208
1998	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142000DI05	210227	Clipped	68440
1998	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142000DI05	631103	Unclipped	72008
1999	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142001DI07	210198	Clipped	69441
1999	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142001DI07	630575	Unclipped	72796
2000	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142002DI07	210330	Clipped	72257
2000	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142002DI07	631190	Unclipped	71602
2001	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142003DI07	631413	Clipped	72882
2001	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142003DI07	210395	Unclipped	73408
2002	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142004DI06	210518	Clipped	74207
2002	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142004DI06	210499	Unclipped	40719
2002	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142004DI06	210505	Unclipped	33721
2003	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142005DI06	210572	Clipped	70869
2003	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142005DI06	632691	Unclipped	74130
2004	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142006DI05	210635	Clipped	79912
2004	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142006DI05	633191	Unclipped	78945
2005	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142007srcoho	633175	Clipped	73041
2005	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142007srcoho	210692	Unclipped	81321
2006	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142008D004	633481	Clipped	72133
2006	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142008D004	210731	Unclipped	81407
2007	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142009QUINC	210772	Clipped	68967
2007	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142009QUINC	634181	Unclipped	75056
2008	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142010quin001	210854	Clipped	73581
2008	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	142010quin001	634768	Unclipped	77578
2009	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172011Q0002	210924	Clipped	80105
2009	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172011Q0002	635189	Unclipped	81078
2010	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172012Q0002	210965	Clipped	79280
2010	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172012Q0002	635586	Unclipped	80161
2011	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172013Q0001	211003	Clipped	75171
2011	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172013Q0001	636188	Unclipped	74732
2012	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172014Q0002	211037	Clipped	80063
2012	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172014Q0002	636468	Unclipped	83283
2013	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172015Q0003	211038	Clipped	71623
2013	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172015Q0003	636631	Unclipped	72173
2014	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172016Q0003	211119	Clipped	79589
2014	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172016Q0003	636775	Unclipped	79707
2015	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172017Q0001	211182	Clipped	76651
2015	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172017Q0001	636911	Unclipped	77470
2016	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172018Q0001	211204	Clipped	76791
2016	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172018Q0001	637133	Unclipped	76229
2017	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172019Q0001	211252	Clipped	78516
2017	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172019Q0001	637322	Unclipped	78756
2018	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172020Q0001	211312	Clipped	80594
2018	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172020Q0001	637498	Unclipped	79234
2019	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172021Q0001	211401	Clipped	79998
2019	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172021Q0001	637706	Unclipped	79918
2020	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172022Q0001	211512	Clipped	78689
2020	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172022Q0001	637938	Unclipped	79848
2021	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172023Q0002	211569	Clipped	81608
2021	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172023Q0002	638256	Unclipped	82272
2022	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172024Q0001	210022	Clipped	82507
2022	SALMON R FISH CULTUR	172024Q0001	638169	Unclipped	82823

12.9 Grays Harbor MU

Table 12.7: Double-index tag codes released within the Grays Harbor MU, brood years 1995 through 2022.

Brood Year	Hatchery	DIT Group ID	Tag Code	Mark	# Released
1995	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199700000440	636157	Clipped	72015
1995	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199700000440	636148	Unclipped	74919
1995	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199700000441	636149	Clipped	71970
1995	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199700000441	636150	Unclipped	72340
1996	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199800000423	630340	Clipped	63978
1996	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199800000423	630341	Unclipped	65229
1996	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199800000439	636213	Clipped	59911
1996	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199800000439	636212	Unclipped	61023
1997	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199900000424	630562	Clipped	75449
1997	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04199900000424	630563	Unclipped	74744
1998	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200000000420	630916	Clipped	65986
1998	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200000000420	630915	Unclipped	72076
1999	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	none	630289	Clipped	69347
1999	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	none	630288	Unclipped	67861
2000	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200200000419	630899	Clipped	71665
2000	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200200000419	630964	Unclipped	71016
2001	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200300000418	631475	Clipped	69765
2001	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200300000418	631531	Unclipped	69866
2002	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200400000426	631875	Clipped	69462
2002	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200400000426	631874	Unclipped	71462
2003	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200500000427	632480	Clipped	72242
2003	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200500000427	632481	Unclipped	72242
2004	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200600000430	632693	Clipped	72621
2004	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200600000430	633090	Unclipped	71973
2005	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200700000432	633564	Clipped	71290
2005	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200700000432	633499	Unclipped	71752
2006	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200800000433	633675	Clipped	73728
2006	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200800000433	633674	Unclipped	73371
2007	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200900000434	634571	Clipped	73833
2007	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04200900000434	634572	Unclipped	73326
2008	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201000000436	634967	Clipped	71762
2008	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201000000436	634966	Unclipped	72179
2009	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201100000442	635467	Clipped	67388
2009	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201100000442	635468	Unclipped	67954
2010	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201200000443	635879	Clipped	71234
2010	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201200000443	635880	Unclipped	71753
2011	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201300000036	636393	Clipped	72929
2011	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201300000036	636394	Unclipped	73041
2012	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201400000040	636402	Clipped	72302
2012	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201400000040	636401	Unclipped	72623
2013	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201500000803	636716	Clipped	71792
2013	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201500000803	636717	Unclipped	71108
2014	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201600000840	636849	Clipped	44961
2014	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201600000840	636851	Clipped	28418
2014	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201600000840	636850	Unclipped	44633
2014	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201600000840	636852	Unclipped	29611
2015	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201700000851	636905	Clipped	73706
2015	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201700000851	636904	Unclipped	74263
2016	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201800000913	637115	Clipped	75483
2016	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201800000913	637114	Unclipped	75567
2017	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201900000958	637324	Clipped	74591
2017	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04201900000958	637325	Unclipped	74881
2018	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202000001023	637573	Clipped	74521
2018	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202000001023	637574	Unclipped	74820
2019	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202100001010	637504	Clipped	74991
2019	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202100001010	637572	Unclipped	75580
2020	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202200001134	638017	Clipped	67363
2020	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202200001134	638016	Unclipped	69846
2021	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202300001154	638258	Clipped	74937
2021	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202300001154	638257	Unclipped	74578
2022	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202400001227	630013	Clipped	74392
2022	BINGHAM CR HATCHERY	04202400001227	630012	Unclipped	67717
1995	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199700000410	636222	Clipped	39309
1995	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199700000410	636224	Clipped	39763
1995	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199700000410	636225	Unclipped	39406
1995	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199700000410	636223	Unclipped	39736
1996	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199800000411	636226	Clipped	39780
1996	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199800000411	636228	Clipped	39541
1996	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199800000411	636227	Unclipped	39244
1996	HUMPTULIPS HATCHERY	04199800000411	636229	Unclipped	35265
1998	SKOOKUMCHUCK HATCHERY	04200000000421	631154	Clipped	51017
1998	SKOOKUMCHUCK HATCHERY	04200000000421	631153	Unclipped	51966

References

Allen, C. 2007. Dead zones in Hood Canal: will South Sound be next? The Daily Olympian.

Ames, J. 1984. Puget Sound chum salmon escapement estimates using spawner curve methodology. pages 133–148 in P. E. K. Symons and M. Waldichuk, editors. Proceedings of the workshop on stream indexing for salmon escapement estimation. West Vancouver, B.C.

Arbeider, M., W. Challenger, K. Dionne, A. Fisher, C. Noble, C. Parken, L. Ritchie, and D. Robichaud. 2020. Estimating Aggregate Coho Salmon Terminal Run and Escapement to the Lower Fraser Management Unit.

Arbeider, R., M. 2020. Interior Fraser Coho Salmon Recovery Potential Assessment. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.

Bates, S. S., K. A. Hubbard, N. Lundholm, M. Montresor, and C. P. Leaw. 2018. Pseudo-nitzschia, Nitzschia, and domoic acid: new research since 2011. Harmful Algae 79:3–43.

Beacham, T. D., K. Jonsen, B. McIntosh, B. J. G. Sutherland, D. Willis, C. Lynch, and C. Wallace. 2020. Large-scale parentage-based tagging and genetic stock identification applied in assessing mixed-stock fisheries and hatchery brood stocks for coho salmon in British Columbia, Canada. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 77(9):1505–1517.

Beamer, E., T. J. Beechie, B. Perkowski, and J. Klochak. 2000. Application of the Skagit Watershed Council’s Strategy: river basin analysis of the Skagit and Samish Basins: tools for salmon habitat restoration and protection. Habitat Restoration; Protection Committee of the Skagit Watershed Council, Mount Vernon, WA.

Beamish, &. B., R. J. 1993. Pacific salmon production trends in relation to climate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 50:1002–1016.

Beamish, D. J. N., R. J., and J. King. 2000. Trends in Coho marine survival in relation to the regime concept. Fisheries Oceanography 9:114–119.

Beamish, G. A. M., R. J., and R. E. Thomson. 1999. Recent declines in the recreational catch of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Strait of Georgia are related to climate. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56:506–515.

Beamish, R. J., and C. Mahnken. 2001. A critical size and period hypothesis to explain natural regulation of salmon abundance and the linkage to climate change. Progress in Oceanography 49(1):423–437.

Beamish, R. J., C. Mahnken, and C. M. Neville. 2004. Evidence that reduced early marine growth is associated with lower marine survival of Coho Salmon. Transactions of American Fisheries Society 133(1):26–33.

Beechie, T., E. Beamer, and L. Wasserman. 1994. Estimating coho salmon rearing habitat and smolt production losses in a large river basin, and implications for habitat restoration. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14(4):797–811.

Birtwell, I., C. Levings, J. Macdonald, and I. Rogers. 1988. A review of fish habitat issues in the fraser river system. Water Quality Research Journal 23(1):1–30.

Bond, N. A., M. F. Cronin, H. Freeland, and N. Mantua. 2015. Causes and impacts of the 2014 warm anomaly in the NE Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters 42(9):3414–3420.

Bradford, M. J. 1998. A risk assessment for thompson river coho salmon. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat.

Bradford, M. J., and J. R. Irvine. 2000. Land use, fishing, climate change, and the decline of thompson river, british columbia, coho salmon. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(1):13–16.

Brown, T. G. 2002. Floodplains, flooding, and salmon rearing habitats in British Columbia: A review. DFO, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2002/007.

Burt, D. W., and M. Wallis. 1997. Assessment of Salmonid Habitat in the Salmon River, Salmon Arm. DFO, Fraser River Action Plan Report, DFO, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Cavole, L. M., A. M. Demko, R. E. Diner, A. Giddings, I. Koester, C. M. L. S. Pagniello, M.-L. Paulsen, A. Ramirez-Valdez, S. M. Schwenck, N. K. Yen, M. E. Zill, and P. J. S. Franks. 2016. Biological impacts of the 2013-2015 warm-water anomaly in the Northeast Pacific: Winners, losers, and the future. Oceanography.

Chittenden, C. M., M. C. Melnychuk, D. W. Welch, and R. S. McKinley. 2010. An Investigation into the Poor Survival of an Endangered Coho Salmon Population. PLOS ONE 5(5):1–10.

Commission, P. S. 2019. Treaty Between the Governemnt of the United States of America and The Government of Canada Concerning Pacific Salmon.

Comprehensive Coho Workgroup. 1998. Comprehensive coho management plan, second Interim Report dated May 5, 1998. Puget Sound Treaty Tribes & Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife.

Conrad, B. (n.d.). Re-analysis of 1977 coho tagging data. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Memorandum to B. Hayman and B. McClure, Skagit System Cooperative, dated July 6, 1995, Olympia, Washington.

Conrad, R. H., R. A. Hayman, E. A. Beamer, and P. J. Goddard. 1997. Coho Salmon escapement to the Skagit River estimated using a mark-recapture method: 1986. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin (6).

Conrad, R. H., R. A. Hayman, E. A. Beamer, and P. J. Goddard. 1998a. Coho Salmon escapement to the Skagit River estimated using a mark-recapture method: 1987. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin (7).

Conrad, R. H., R. A. Hayman, E. A. Beamer, and P. J. Goddard. 1998b. Coho Salmon escapement to the Skagit River estimated using a mark-recapture method: 1989. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin (9).

Conrad, R. H., R. A. Hayman, E. A. Beamer, and P. J. Goddard. 1998c. Coho Salmon escapement to the Skagit River estimated using a mark-recapture method: 1988. Northwest Fishery Resource Bulletin (8).

Coronado, C., and R. Hilborn. 1998. Spatial and temporal factors affecting survival in coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(9):2067–2077.

Cousens, N. B. F., G. A. Thomas, C. G. Swann, and M. C. Healey. 1982. A review of salmon escapement estimation techniques. Department of Fisheries; Oceans, Nanaimo, B.C.

Decker, A. S., M. A. Hawkshaw, B. A. Patten, J. Sawada, and I. A. L. Jantz. 2014. Assessment of the Interior Fraser Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Management Unit Relative to the 2006 Conservation Strategy Recovery Objectives. DFO, Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2014/086. xi + 64 p.

Decker, A. S., and J. Irvine. 2014. Pre-COSEWIC Assessment of Interior Fraser Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). DFO, Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat Research Document 2013/121.

Eames, M. J., T. J. Quinn II, and M. Hino. 1983. 1977 northern Puget Sound adult coho and chum tagging studies. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Technical Report 75, Olympia, Washington.

Finn, R. J. R., L. Chalifour, S. E. Gergel, S. G. Hinch, D. C. Scott, and T. G. Martin. 2021. Quantifying lost and inaccessible habitat for Pacific salmon in Canada’s Lower Fraser River. Ecosphere 12(7):e03646.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998a. Salmon watershed planning profiles for the South Thompson-Shuswap Habitat Management Area. Available from: Fraser River Action Plan, DFO, 555 West Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5G3, Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 1998b. Salmon watershed planning profiles for the Thompson Nicola Habitat Management Area. Available from: Fraser River Action Plan, DFO, 555 West Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5G3, Canada.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2005. Canada’s policy for conservation of wild Pacific salmon. 23-476/2005E, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2012. Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2018. Framework for Determination of Pacific Salmon Commission Reference Ponts for Status Determination and Associated Allowable Exploitation Rates for Select Canadian Southern Coho Salmon Management Units (DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2018/016).

Fisheries and Oceans Canada. 2020. Southern Salmon Integrated Fisheries Management Plan. 538p.

Ford, M. J. (editor). 2011. Status review update for Pacific salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act: Pacific Northwest. United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic; Atmospheric Administration, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA technical memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-113.

Fraser River Action Plan (FRAP). 1998. Wild, threatened, and lost streams of the lower Fraser valley; a summary report. Habitat; Enhancement Branch, Fisheries; Oceans Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Harding, T., L. Jaremovic, and G. Kosakoski. 1994. Strategic Review of Fisheries Resources, North Thompson Habitat Management Area. Available from: Fraser River Action Plan, DFO, 555 West Hastings St. Vancouver, B.C., V6B 5G3, Canada.

Hartman, G. F., C. Groot, and T. G. Northcote. 2000. Science and management in sustainable salmonid fisheries: the ball is not in our court. pages 31–50 in E. E. Knudsen and D. McDonald, editors. Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press, New York.

Hayman, R. A., and E. A. Beamer. 1987. 1986 Skagit coho spawning assessment study. Coho study Progress Report No. 4. Skagit System Cooperative, LaConner, WA.

Haymes, J. 2008. Review of natural escapements, exploitation rates, and natural production and exploitation rate monitoring methodologies for Washington Pacific Salmon Treaty coho management units. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Memo to tribal comanagers, dated Dec. 8, 2008, Olympia, Washington.

Healey, M. 2011. The cumulative impacts of climate change on Fraser River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and implications for management. Canadian Jouranl of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:718–737.

Holt, C. A., A. Cass, B. Holtby, and B. Riddell. 2009. Indicators of status and benchmarks for conservation units in Canada’s Wild Salmon Policy. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.

Holtby, B., J. Irvine R. Tanasichuk, and K. Simpson. 1999. Forecast for southern british columbia coho salmon in 1999. Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat.

Holtby, L. B., and K. A. Ciruna. 2007. Conservation units for pacific salmon under the wild salmon policy. Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat.

Hood Canal Joint Technical Committee. 1994. Hood Canal natural coho MSH escapement estimate and escapement goals. Point No Point Treaty Council, Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, U.S. Fish; Wildlife Service.

Interior Fraser Coho Recovery Team. 2006. Conservation Strategy for coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), interior Fraser River populations. Fisheries; Oceans Canada, Vancouver, British Columbia.

International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. 1945. Annual Report 1944. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, New Westminster, British Columbia.

Irvine, J. R., R. E. Bailey, M. J. Bradford, R. K. Kadowaki, and W. S. Shaw. 1999b. 1999 Assessment of Thompson River/Upper Fraser River Coho Salmon. DFO, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 99/128.

Irvine, J. R., and M. Fukuwaka. 2011. Pacific salmon abundance trends and climate change. ICES Journal of Marine Science 68(6):1122–1130.

Irvine, J. R., J. F. T. Morris, and L. M. Cobb. 1993. Area-under-the-curve salmon escapement estimation manual. Department of Fisheries; Oceans, Biological Sciences Branch, Canadian Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Technical Report 1932.

Irvine, J. R., K. Wilson, B. Rosenberger, and R. Cook. 1999a. Stock Assessment of Thompson River/Upper Fraser River Coho Salmon. DFO, Canadian Stock Assessment Secretariat Research Document 99/28.

Irvine, J. R., R. E. Withler, M. J. Bradford, R. E. Bailey, S. Lehmann, K. Wilson, J. Candy, and W. S. Shaw. 2000. Stock Status and Genetics of Coho Salmon from the Interior Fraser River. DFO, Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2000/125.

Jacox, M. G., M. A. Alexander, N. J. Mantua, J. D. Scott, G. Hervieux, R. S. Webb, and F. E. Werner. 2018. Forcing of multi-year extreme ocean temperatures that impacted California Current living marine resources in 2016. pages s27–s33 in N. C. Herring S. C. and P. A. Stott, editors. Explaining extreme events of 2016 from a climate perspective. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Johnson, P., C. A. J. Noble, and M. Bruce. 2020. Escapement of Wild Coho Salmon to the Lillooet River, 2019. Prepared for the Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC, by LGL Limited, Sidney, BC, Johnson Fisheries Science, Stevenson, WA, & Líl’wat Nation, Mount Currie, BC., v + 16 p.

Johnson, P., J. Smith, and C. A. J. Noble. 2019. Site Assessment of Lillooet River for Use of Imaging Sonar to Estimate Coho Salmon Escapement. Prepared for the Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC, & Líl’wat Nation, Mount Currie, BC, by LGL Limited, Sidney, BC, Johnson Fisheries Science, Stevenson, WA.

Joint Coho Technical Committee. 2013. 1986-2009 periodic report, revised. Pacific Salmon Commission.

Korman, J., J. Sawada, and M. J. Bradford. 2019. Evaluation framework for assesing potential Pacific Salmon Commission reference points for population status and associated allowable exploitation rates for Strait of Georgia and Fraser River Coho Salmon Management Units. DFO, Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2019/001. vii + 81 p.

Lackey, R. T. 2001. Defending reality. Fisheries 26(6):26–27.

Langer, O. E., F. Hietkamp, and M. Farrell. 2000. Human Population Growth and the Sustainability of Urban Salmonid Streams in the Lower Fraser Valley. pages 31–50 in E. E. Knudsen and D. McDonald, editors. Sustainable fisheries management: Pacific salmon. CRC Press, New York.

Litz, M. 2023. 2023 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division, Fish Program.

Litz, M. 2024. 2024 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division, Fish Program.

Mantua, N. J., S. R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J. M. Wallace, and R. C. Francis. 1997. A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78(6):1069–1080.

Morgan, C. A., B. R. Beckman, L. A. Weitkamp, and K. L. Fresh. 2019. Recent ecosystem disturbance in the Northern California Current. Fisheries 44(10):465–474.

Morrison, J., M. C. Quick, and M. G. Foreman. 2002. Climate change in the Fraser River watershed: flow and temperature projections. Journal of Hydrology 263(1):230–244.

Mote, P. W., E. A. Parson, A. F. Hamlet, W. S. Keeton, and D. Lettenmaier. 2003. Preparing for Climate Change: The Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Climate Change 61(1-2):45–88.

Nandor, G. F., J. R. Longwill, and D. L. Webb. 2010. Overview of the coded wire tag program in the Greater Pacific Region of North America. pages 5–46 in K. S. Wolf and J. S. O’Neal, editors. PNAMP Special Publication: tagging, telemetry and marking measures for monitoring fish populations—a compendium of new and recent science for use in informing technique and decision modalities.

Neilson, J., and E. Taylor. 2018. Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), Thompson River and Chilcotin River populations in Canada, 2018: COSEWIC. Technical summaries and supporting information for emergency assessments.

Nelson, K., A. Loch, and G. Lucchetti. 1997. Wild coho salmon indicator stock study for the Stillaguamish River. Final report no. 97-2. Tulalip Tribe, Tulalip Natural Resources Division, Marysville, WA.

NOAA Fisheries. 2009. Endangered Species Act status of West Coast salmon and steelhead. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.

Noble, C. A. J., J. Korman, and R. Bocking. 2015. Habitat-Based Model and Stock-Recruit Productivity Estimates for Coho Salmon in Georgia Strait Mainland, Georgia Strait Vancouver Island and Lower Fraser Management Units. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Res. Doc. 2015/050. x + 91 p.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2011. Review of the 2010 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2012. Preseason report I: stock abundance analysis and environmental assessment part 1 for 2012 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2013. Preseason report I: stock abundance analysis and environmental assessment part 1 for 2013 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2023a. Preseason report III: council adopted Management measures and environmental assessment part 3 for 2023 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2023b. Preseason report I: stock abundance analysis and environmental assessment - part 1 for 2023 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2024a. Preseason report III: council adopted Management measures and environmental assessment part 3 for 2024 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2024b. Amended review of 2023 ocean salmon fisheries. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2024c. Preseason report I: stock abundance analysis and environmental assessment - part 1 for 2024 ocean salmon fishery regulations. Regulation Identifier Number 0648-BM47. Pacific Fishery Management Council, Portland, Oregon.

Pacific Salmon Commission. 1999. Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC.

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2009. Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC.

Pacific Salmon Commission. 2022. Pacific Salmon Treaty. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC.

Pacific Salmon Commission Coded Wire Tag Workgroup. 2008. An action plan in response to Coded Wire Tag (CWT) Expert Panel recommendations. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1977. Regional Mark Information System Database [online database], continuously since 1977. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Regional Mark Processing Center, Portland, Oregon.

Perry, E. A. 1995. Salmon stock restoration and enhancement: strategies and experiences in British Columbia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 15:152–160.

Pitre, K. R., and C. L. Cross. 1993. Impact of coho enhancement of three Thompson River tributaries. pages 140–150 in L. Berg and P. W. Delaney, editors. Canada, Dept. of Fisheries; Oceans. Habitat Management Sector. Policy & Information Unit., Nanaimo, British Columbia.

Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe. 2003. Port Gamble coho net pens hatchery and genetic management plan, Plan submitted March 17, 2003 to NOAA Fisheries. Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, Kingston, Washington.

Porter, M., and M. Nelitz. 2009. A future outlook on the effects of climate change on coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) habitats in the Cariboo-Chilcotin. Prepared by ESSA Technologies Ltd. for Fraser Salmon; Watersheds Program, B.C. Ministry of Environment,; Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council.

Puget Sound Salmon Stock Review Group. 1992. Assessment of the status of five stocks of Puget Sound chinook and coho as required under the PFMC definition of overfishing; summary report for the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, Unprocessed report. Pacific Fisheries Management Council.

Raymond, W. W., J. S. Barber, M. N. Dethier, H. A. Hayford, C. D. G. Harley, T. L. King, B. Paul, C. A. Speck, E. D. Tobin, A. E. T. Raymond, and P. S. McDonald. 2022. Assessment of the impacts of an unprecedented heatwave on intertidal shellfish of the Salish Sea. Ecology 103(10).

Rood, K. M., and R. E. Hamilton. 1995. Hydrology and Water Use for Salmon Streams in the Upper Fraser Habitat Management Area, British Columbia. Canadian Manuscript Report Fisheries Aquatic Science 2294.

Rosenau, M. L., and M. Angelo. 2003. Conflicts between people and fish for water: Two British Columbia salmon and steelhead rearing streams in need of flows. Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Seber, G. A. F. 1973. The estimation of animal abundance. Charles Griffin; Company Limited, London.

Seiler, D., P. Hanratty, S. Neuhauser, P. Topping, M. Ackley, and L. E. Kishimoto. 1995. Wild salmon production and survival evaluation annual performance report: October 1993 - September 1994. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Seiler, D., P. Hanratty, S. Neuhauser, P. Topping, M. Ackley, and L. E. Kishimoto. 2003. Quilcene coho net pen hatchery and genetic management plan; Plan submitted March 17, 2003 to NOAA Fisheries. Skokomish Tribe, Shelton, WA.

Seiler, D., S. Neuhauser, and M. Ackley. 1984. Upstream/downstream salmonid trapping project 1980-1982. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Selective Fishery Evaluation Committee. 1999. 1998 annual report. Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC.

Simpson, K., R. Diewert, R. Kadawaki, C. Cross, and S. Lehmann. 1997. A 1996 update of assessment information for Strait of Georgia coho salmon stocks (including the Fraser River). DFO, Canadian Stock Assessment Section Research Document 97/05.

Stillaguamish Tribe. 2004. Stillaguamish coho program: hatchery and genetic management plan; Plan submitted June 31, 2000 to NOAA Fisheries. Skokomish Tribe, Arlington, WA.

Stockley. 1963. 1961 Skagit River silver salmon run: progress report. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Research Division.

Swain, L. G., and G. B. Holms. 1988. Water quality assessment and objectives - Fraser-Delta area Boundary Bay and its tributaries vol. 2: technical appendix. Ministry of Environment; Parks, Water Management Branch, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Taylor, E. B., and J. D. McPhail. 1985. Variation in Burst and Prolonged Swimming Performance Among British Columbia Populations of Coho Salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42(12):2029–2033.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Quilcene National Fish Hatchery coho program hatchery and genetic management plan. Plan submitted December 1999 to NOAA Fisheries. U.S. Fish; Wildlife Service, Quilcene, WA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Comprehensive hatchery management plan for the Quilcene National Fish Hatchery. U.S. Fish; Wildlife Service, Quilcene National Fish Hatchery, Quilcene, WA.

Volkhardt, G. C., and D. E. Seiler. 2001. Revised forecast analysis for the WDFW and Conrad forecast models. Memo to the Hood Canal Forecast Review Group, October 22, 2001. Washington State Department of Fisheries, Research Division.

Volkhardt, G., P. Hanratty, D. Rawding, P. Topping, M. Ackley, C. Kinsel, K. Kiyohara, and L. Kishimoto. 2007. 2007 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound & Washington coastal systems. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2001. 1999 Annual Report: Salmonid screening, habitat enhancement, and restoration section (SSHEAR). Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003b. Oak Harbor net pen Coho program hatchery and genetic management plan. Plan submitted March 17, 2003 to NOAA Fisheries. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003c. George Adams coho yearling program hatchery and genetic management plan. Plan submitted March 2003 to NOAA Fisheries. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003a. Marblemount coho program hatchery and genetic management plan. Plan submitted March 17, 2003 to NOAA Fisheries. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. State listed species, revised February 2020. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

WDFW and WWTIT. 1994. 1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory (SASSI). Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife,; Western Washington Treaty Indian Tribes, Olympia, WA.

Weitkamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope, and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA Technical Memo NMFS NWFFSC 24.

White, R. H., S. Anderson, J. F. Booth, G. Braich, C. Draeger, C. Fei, C. D. G. Harley, S. B. Henderson, M. Jakob, C. Lau, and others. 2023. The unprecedented Pacific Northwest heatwave of June 2021. Nature Communications 14(1):727.

Zillges. 1977. Methodology for determining Puget Sound coho escapement estimates, pre-season run size prediction, and in-season run assessment. State of Washington, Department of Fisheries, Technical Report 28, Olympia, Washington.

Zimmerman, M. 2011. 2011 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division, Fish Program.

Zimmerman, M. 2012. 2012 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division, Fish Program.

Zimmerman, M. 2013. 2013 wild coho forecasts for Puget Sound, Washington Coast, and lower Columbia. Washington Department of Fish; Wildlife, Science Division, Fish Program.

Footnotes

1. Beginning BY 1996, all tagged releases were unmarked.

2. BYs 1997 and 1998, all tagged releases were unmarked; fry released BYs 84-90 and 93.

3. BYs 1999, 2001-02, and 2005, all tagged releases were unmarked; fry released BY 1995.

4. BYs 1997 and 1998 were released as fry.

5. When space is limited at Spius Creek Hatchery, additional fish are raised at Chilliwack River Hatchery and released in the Coldwater River.

6. Fry released BYs 1983-1990.

7. All fry releases.

8. All fry releases.

9. Beginning BY 1998, all tagged releases were unmarked; fry released BY 1987, 1989-90.

10. BY 1997 released unmarked; fry released BY 1984-86, 1988.

11. Beginning BY 1997, all tagged releases were unmarked; fry released BY 1983-86, 1988.

12. Beginning BY 1997, all tagged releases were unmarked; fry released BY 1988-89.

13. Begging BY 2000, all tagged releases were unmarked.

14. All tagged releases were unmarked.

15. Fry released BY 1989.

16. Fry released BYs 2009-10.

17. Beginning with BY 1997 (except 2004) tagged releases were unmarked.

18. Beginning BY 1996, all tagged releases were unmarked.

19. Bernie Gobin Hatchery tagging program and the Skykomish tagging program at the Wallace River Hatchery are used to represent production in both the Stillaguamish and Snohomish River Basins.

20. BY 1997-98 were released unmarked; this stock was used to represent Stillaguamish in the FRAM base period.

21. BY 1996 and 1998-2020, all tagged releases were unmarked.

22. Fry released BY 1986.

23. Release groups were very small.

24. In all years, release groups are very small. Beginning BY 2003, all tagged releases were unmarked.

25. Beginning BY 1996, all tagged releases were unmarked.

26. Beginning BY 1995, all tagged releases were unmarked.

27. Beginning BY 1995, all tagged releases were unmarked.